Why India’s Street Dog Debate Needs Science — Not Courtroom Shortcuts

Over the past decade, street dogs in India have moved from being neighbourhood fixtures to subjects of constitutional debate. Rarely has a country seen its highest court drawn into everyday questions of dog management. Yet in India, the issue has reached the “Supreme Court of India”, raising deeper concerns about governance, science, and the balance between compassion and public order.

How street dogs reached the Supreme Court

In a striking instance, the Supreme Court recently took up a street dog-related matter suo motu, reportedly based on an unverified media report, and issued directions for the mass confinement of dogs in pounds. The order was passed without hearing all sides — a procedural departure that immediately raised concerns.

Beyond feasibility — such an exercise would require thousands of crores and massive infrastructure in a short time — the episode reopened an older constitutional question: should courts step into domains where detailed laws, expert bodies and executive mechanisms already exist? The matter is now before a reconstituted Bench, but the debate it triggered remains unresolved.

Separation of powers and the role of the executive

India’s Constitution clearly demarcates responsibilities among the legislature, executive and judiciary. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the authority to frame and revise animal management guidelines rests with the “Animal Welfare Board of India”.

From a constitutional perspective, many argue that the Court’s role should be to ensure the law is implemented — not to substitute itself for expert executive bodies. Harmonising human safety with compassion for animals, which is itself a Fundamental Duty, is precisely what statutory frameworks were designed to do.

The law already exists — and it is science-based

Contrary to popular perception, India does not lack a legal framework to manage street dogs. The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules — first notified under the 1960 Act and updated in 2023 — prescribe a clear national protocol: Capture–Sterilise–Vaccinate–Release (CSVR).

This approach reflects the global scientific consensus endorsed by the “World Health Organisation” and the “World Organisation for Animal Health”. Sterilisation stabilises dog populations; vaccination prevents rabies. Mass removal or detention, by contrast, creates “vacuum zones” that attract unsterilised dogs from nearby areas, restarting the cycle of aggression and disease.

Why detention and dog pounds fail in practice

There is no documented example anywhere in the world where large-scale detention has solved street dog management. Indian experience with dog pounds is particularly grim. Chronic underfunding, lack of veterinary care, staff shortages and weak oversight often turn pounds into places of suffering rather than safety.

Far from protecting the public, such facilities frequently become invisible death zones. The assumption that pounds are humane or effective solutions is not supported by either evidence or experience.

What successful countries did differently

Countries that have solved the street dog problem did so through administration, not adjudication. “France”, faced with uncontrolled dog populations in the 1980s, focused on municipal responsibility: mandatory registration, sterilisation incentives, strict penalties for abandonment, and strong waste management. Public education reframed dogs from nuisances to shared responsibility.

The “Netherlands” went further, becoming the world’s first country with zero stray dogs — without killing them. It achieved this through nationwide CSVR programmes, sustained funding, enforcement of pet ownership norms, adoption systems and civil society participation. Courts played no operational role; local authorities did.

India’s own evidence from the ground

Indian cities that have implemented Animal Birth Control programmes consistently show stabilisation and, over time, decline in dog populations. Aggression also reduces once dogs are neutered, vaccinated and not constantly stressed by hunger or harassment.

Most street dogs are not vicious. Biting incidents are often linked to hunger, mating stress or provocation. Communities — especially among poorer and lower-middle-income groups — often feed and coexist with neighbourhood dogs, who also act as informal guards. For children, interaction with animals becomes an early lesson in empathy; for therapists, dogs can even be tools of care.

Why fear-driven solutions miss the point

The conflict around street dogs is less about animals and more about governance failure. When waste management breaks down, food sources increase. When sterilisation programmes stall, populations grow. When public communication fails, fear fills the vacuum.

Impractical, punitive solutions rooted in phobia rather than evidence risk worsening both human and animal suffering. What is needed instead is rigorous enforcement of existing law, adequately funded municipal programmes, and public cooperation.

A rational, humane way forward

India’s street dog challenge does not demand new laws or extraordinary judicial interventions. It demands faithful application of what already exists — science-based policy, administrative accountability, and constitutional compassion.

Dogs are not abstractions or enemies. They are part of urban ecosystems and social life. Managing them rationally and humanely is not sentimentality; it is evidence-backed governance. The real test is whether institutions choose science and cooperation over fear and shortcuts.