Answer

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s directive to cage stray dogs in Delhi-NCR signals a major policy shift in managing urban human–animal conflicts. Intended to curb dog bites and rabies risks, it faces criticism for clashing with Anti Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and WHO’s preference for sterilisation and vaccination over relocation, underscoring the challenge of balancing public safety with animal welfare in growing cities.

Body

How the Supreme Court’s Directive May Address Public Safety Concerns

• Reduction in dog-bite incidents: By confining stray dogs in shelters, the likelihood of sudden or unprovoked dog attacks in public spaces could be reduced, especially in densely populated urban areas.
• Improved safety for vulnerable groups: Children, elderly citizens, and delivery workers are particularly vulnerable to dog-related injuries; caging dogs could reduce these risks.
  Eg: Incidents of schoolchildren being chased or attacked have led to community protests in several cities.
• Control in high-risk zones: Removing dogs from sensitive areas like schools, hospitals, and public parks could create safer environments for residents and reduce panic.
• Immediate preventive measure: Caging dogs offers a quick, visible intervention compared to long-term vaccination and sterilisation drives, which take time to show impact.
• Reassurance to the public: The directive signals government and judicial responsiveness to citizens’ safety concerns, potentially restoring public confidence in law enforcement’s handling of the issue.
  

How the Directive May Impact Animal Welfare

• Contradiction to Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023: Caging and relocation go against the Animal Birth Control Rules(ABC), 2023, and WHO’s recommendation of sterilisation and vaccination as the most effective rabies control strategy.
  Eg: WHO clearly states mass dog vaccination is more cost-effective than culling or confinement.
• Stress and suffering in shelters: Overcrowded, underfunded shelters could lead to poor living conditions, malnutrition, disease spread, and psychological trauma among confined dogs.
• Breakdown of territorial stability: Removing dogs from their territories can cause ecological imbalances, leading to migration of other dogs or pests into the area.
  Eg: ABC Rules highlight that displacement often results in more aggressive animals filling the vacated space.
• Increase in cruelty and harassment: The directive may embolden individuals to harm or drive away dogs, and lead to harassment of community feeders and caretakers.
• Loss of community protection: Community dogs often deter theft, nuisance animals, and rodents; their removal could indirectly reduce local safety.

Viable Measures to Address the Issue

• Strengthen ABC programme implementation: Scale up sterilisation and mass vaccination drives to meet WHO standards, ensuring both population control and rabies prevention.
  Eg: Countries like Sri Lanka have significantly reduced rabies deaths through sustained ABC and vaccination efforts.
• Public awareness and community participation: Conduct campaigns on safe human-dog interaction, responsible waste management, and benefits of vaccinated community dogs.
• Designate “dog-free” and “dog-care” zones: Identify sensitive areas (schools, hospitals) for proactive dog relocation within the same locality, while creating safe zones for community dog care.
  Eg: Chandigarh has demarcated dog-feeding points away from high-footfall public spaces.
• Better urban waste management: Reducing open garbage piles will decrease food sources for stray populations, naturally controlling numbers and movement.
• Partnerships with NGOs and RWAs: Leverage trained animal welfare organisations and Resident Welfare Associations for monitoring, vaccination, and dispute resolution.

Conclusion

Managing the human–animal interface in urban India needs science-based, balanced measures that protect both people and animals. While the Supreme Court’s directive addresses immediate safety concerns, long-term solutions lie in strengthening ABC programmes, improving waste management, and raising public awareness. A coordinated effort by the judiciary, government, NGOs, and communities can ensure coexistence rooted in compassion, ecological balance, and public safety.

DOWNLOAD PDF