The Rule of Law and the Right to Roam: The Supreme Court’s Shifting Stance on Stray Dog Management

Abstract

This article critically examines the Delhi Supreme Court’s recent judicial pronouncements concerning the management of the stray dog population. On August 11, 2025, the Court issued a stringent directive mandating the complete relocation of all stray dogs to shelters, rejecting the established Animal Birth Control (ABC) program. However, on August 21, 2025, the Court revisited and revised its stance, reinstating ABC principles of sterilization and vaccination, with re-release permitted unless dogs posed a threat to public safety.

This article analyses the legal and ethical implications of this judicial reversal, highlighting the tension between public safety, animal welfare, and policy feasibility.

Introduction

The human–animal conflict in Indian cities, particularly concerning stray dogs, has long posed complex social and legal challenges. In a landmark intervention, the Delhi Supreme Court sought to address this issue directly in August 2025.

• Initial Order (11 August 2025): Mandated mass relocation of stray dogs into shelters within eight weeks.
• Reaction: Sparked outcry from animal welfare organizations, legal scholars, and public policy experts for its impracticality and potential cruelty.
• Revised Order (21 August 2025): Restored reliance on sterilization, vaccination, and controlled re-release under the ABC (Dogs) Rules, 2023, with exceptions for dogs that are sick, injured, or aggressive.

This judicial volte-face highlights the competing priorities of public health, animal rights, and administrative feasibility.

Use of Legal Jargon and Doctrinal Framework

• Initial Order: Invoked the maxim salus populi suprema lex esto (“the welfare of the people is the supreme law”), emphasizing public safety under Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Modified Order: Incorporated the doctrine of parens patriae, recognizing the state’s duty as guardian not only of its citizens but also of non-human beings.
• The revised ruling reconciles:
  • Citizens’ right to life and safe environment (Art. 21)
  • Animals’ statutory rights under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2023.

Thus, the orders carry significant precedential weight for future municipal and animal welfare policy.

The Proof (Evidence & Policy Considerations)

1. Initial Basis: The Court relied heavily on anecdotal evidence of rising dog-bite incidents, presenting a compelling prima facie case for state intervention.
2. Scientific Counterpoint: The ABC program, backed by research and endorsed by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), remains the most effective and humane method of long-term population control and rabies eradication.
3. Practical Challenges:
   • Relocating hundreds of thousands of dogs into shelters within eight weeks was logistically and financially impossible.
   • Overcrowding would likely result in institutional cruelty, undermining the PCA Act’s spirit.
4. Legal Oversight: The initial order effectively ignored AWBI’s statutory authority, operating sub silentio against established guidelines.

Case Law Analysis

• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
  Expanded Article 21 to include animals’ right to life with dignity, prohibiting unnecessary pain and suffering.
• N.R. Sangeetha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 CTC 803
  Affirmed humane treatment as a guiding principle in stray management policies.
• Application to Current Case:
  • The initial order overlooked this jurisprudence, focusing narrowly on human safety.
  • The modified order restored balance, aligning with A. Nagaraja and affirming animals’ right to co-exist in their natural urban habitats, unless proven dangerous.

Conclusion

The Delhi Supreme Court’s journey from a blanket relocation order to a balanced, rights-based framework demonstrates the dynamic nature of judicial reasoning in animal welfare jurisprudence.

• The initial directive prioritized public safety but was legally and practically unsustainable.
• The revised order reaffirms sterilization, vaccination, and re-release, balancing citizens’ safety with animals’ right to life and dignity.
• Implementation now rests with Delhi-NCR civic authorities, who must ensure that exceptions (sick, injured, or aggressive dogs) are applied judiciously and humanely.

The future of stray dog management lies not in outright bans but in building a model of compassionate coexistence, grounded in both law and practicality.

References

• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
• Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023
• Animal Welfare Board of India Guidelines
• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547
• N.R. Sangeetha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (3) CTC 803

FAQs

Q1. What was the initial order of the Delhi Supreme Court?
On August 11, 2025, the Court mandated the complete removal and relocation of all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR to shelters within eight weeks.

Q2. Why was the initial order controversial?
It was impractical due to inadequate infrastructure, risked institutional cruelty, and contradicted the scientifically proven ABC program.

Q3. How was the order modified?
On August 21, 2025, the Court required dogs to be caught, sterilized, vaccinated, and released back, except if sick, injured, or aggressive.

Q4. What legal principles were at play?

• Initial order: Salus populi suprema lex esto (public welfare above all).
• Modified order: Balance between public safety (citizens) and animal rights (PCA Act, ABC Rules, Art. 21).

Q5. How does this decision relate to the ABC Rules, 2023?
The initial order rejected them; the modified order reinstated and reaffirmed them, aligning judicial policy with national guidelines.

Q6. Who is responsible for implementation?
Delhi-NCR civic authorities, in collaboration with the AWBI and recognized animal welfare groups.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India