CJI’s intervention on stray dogs will delight animal lovers
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai’s recent assurance that he would examine the Supreme Court’s directive concerning stray dogs must be a welcome relief to animal lovers across the country. The directive, issued on August 11 by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, called for the removal of stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR region, with instructions to relocate them to designated shelters. The order was framed to make all localities free from stray dogs, ostensibly to address growing public concerns about safety, hygiene, and civic order. However, the issue is far from one-dimensional.
The debate over stray dog management in India has always been complex, drawing strong views from multiple stakeholders, including residents’ associations, animal welfare activists, municipal authorities, legal experts and the citizens. While some view the large stray dog population as a pressing public health and safety problem, others see these animals as sentient beings deserving protection, compassion, and a dignified life. In recent years, there has been a rise in reported incidents of dog bites, often amplified by media coverage, which has intensified public calls for stricter action.
On the other hand, animal rights groups argue that the abrupt removal of strays from their familiar environments can cause distress to the animals and may even be counterproductive if not supported by long-term, humane solutions. For them, sterilisation, vaccination, and community feeding under supervised conditions are proven, sustainable strategies to control stray populations while safeguarding public health. Gavai’s intervention signals an awareness of this delicate balance. He has opened the doors for a more measured approach that considers both public safety and animal welfare. Such a stance could pave the way for a policy that is practical yet humane, and for judicial orders that encourages cooperation rather than confrontation between authorities and animal lovers.
The responsibility for managing stray animals does not lie solely with the judiciary or the municipal authorities. Civil society organisations, residents’ welfare associations, and all other individuals have a role to play. Humane stray management is resource-intensive and requires consistent funding, trained personnel, adequate shelter facilities, and active monitoring. Without these, relocation orders may end up being implemented haphazardly, potentially leading to overcrowded shelters, disease outbreaks among animals, or even clandestine culling—practices that would invite public outrage and legal challenges.
Moreover, the issue extends beyond Delhi-NCR. Many Indian cities face similar challenges, where the stray dog population is the unintended consequence of inadequate waste management, urban sprawl, and a lack of robust sterilisation programs. Any decision made in the capital region could set a precedent—positive or negative—for the rest of the country. This makes it even more crucial that the path chosen balances compassion with pragmatism, and law with empathy.
The way forward should ideally involve structured consultations between the judiciary, local bodies, veterinarians, NGOs, and community representatives. Such discussions could lead to a comprehensive framework that addresses root causes—uncontrolled breeding, lack of waste disposal systems, and insufficient public awareness—rather than simply dealing with the visible symptom of stray dogs on the streets. The CJI’s statement offers a chance to transform what could have been a polarising order into a collaborative effort for humane and effective stray dog management. It is now up to all stakeholders to seize this opportunity and help achieve the intended purpose.
