Stray Realities
- connect2783
- Aug 20
- 7 min read
Updated: Aug 25
Between Coexistence and Control
The recent Supreme Court ruling directing the capture and sheltering of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has pushed the issue into sharp national focus. This article explores how such orders clash with existing laws and collide with the fragile realities of city governments already struggling with funds, staff, and facilities. Drawing on local and global lessons, the article argues that humane and effective stray dog management will require a shared approach, where courts, municipalities, veterinary systems, and citizens together build structures of care and responsibility.
Stray dogs in focus
On 11 August 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered a ruling in the suo motu case “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” and issued directions to authorities on managing stray dogs.
The Court directed Delhi and NCR authorities to capture all stray dogs, house them in shelters, and ensure sterilisation, deworming, and vaccination without release. It set strict deadlines-create shelters/pounds in eight weeks, helplines for bites, close monitoring, and a steady vaccine supply. It also warned that non-compliance would invite contempt.
This [stray dog menace] is happening because of the inaction of the Municipal Corporation.
Within three days, a larger bench reserved its decision on pleas to stay the order (i.e., it heard the arguments but chose to announce the ruling later), pointing out the gap between judicial intent and institutional capacity. Justice Vikram Nath noted the inaction of local authorities and stressed that responsibility must be shared beyond the judiciary.
Between orders and implementation
The directions raise feasibility and legality concerns, since the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 mandate releasing sterilised dogs back, conflicting with the Court’s blanket ban on re-release. This judgment, with significant implications for the management of stray/free-range dogs, should put the 74th Constitutional Amendment into the spotlight. The XII schedule of the 74th Amendment made prevention of cruelty to animals, cattle pounds or dog sterilisation a core function of local governments.
However, it's difficult to make an informed decision on any long-term solution to human-dog co-existence in our cities without comprehending the reality of this function. If the judgement is to be executed, local governments will find their hands full with the need to set up and maintain shelters and kennels, running sterilisation and vaccination programs, coordinating with NGOs and private vets, as well as monitoring the stray population and complaints from citizens.
Now, imagine trying to carry out these responsibilities given the twin challenges of a large stray dog population and limited capacity within local governments.
1. Reality of the dog population in our cities:
A survey in Trichy (by the municipal corporation and NGOs) found that only 47% of the approximate 43,767 stray dogs were sterilised as of early 2025. The city currently sterilises around 650-720 dogs per month, which translates to roughly 7,800-8,600 annually. At this rate, full population control can take 3-4 years, assuming the population doesn’t grow further.
In Nagpur, civic surveys estimate around 90,000 stray dogs (roughly 3% of the city’s human population) roam across its 10 zones. Dog-bite cases remain a pressing public health concern, with over 58,000 incidents reported in a six-and-a-half-year period, sometimes touching nearly 10,000 in a single year. While sterilisation was once very less (just 67 surgeries in 2017-18), efforts have expanded dramatically since mid-2023. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, working with NGOs, now operates three centres and has sterilised nearly 40,000 dogs in two years, averaging 60-70 procedures daily.
Other smaller but fast-growing cities like Mohali and Raipur show the same pattern limited facilities, high stray populations, and mounting health risks, all countered by sterilisation efforts that remain slow, costly, and resource-intensive.
2. Reality of funds and functionaries in the cities:
If the scale of the stray dog population feels a bit overwhelming, the gaps in funds and functionaries make management even harder. In over half the states, no single agency is clearly accountable: municipal governments may track stray numbers, Animal Husbandry departments run shelters, and NGOs carry out sterilisation. This fragmentation means no one body truly owns the problem.
Most cities have just one shelter, and many lack even that. Without enough kennels, cities cannot sterilise properly, give dogs care after surgery, or keep them humanely. The contrasts are stark: one city struggled to even construct a basic operating theatre for animals, while in some places each newly built animal shelter averages around ₹1.6 crore per unit.
Payment models for the animal services are inconsistent as well; some municipalities pay NGOs ₹900 per dog for capture, sterilisation, and vaccination, while others budget only ₹100–200 per procedure. In some government-run shelters, 96% of the annual budget goes to staff salaries, leaving less than 1% for medicines and 3% for food. But the focus on cost and numbers often sidelines quality; a look at operating procedures and facilities reveals gaps in surgical equipment, sterile environments, PPE use, and anaesthesia monitoring.
Staff shortages deepen the problem. In one capital city, a planned Kanji House (a municipal facility meant for holding stray or seized animals), never materialised because no veterinary doctor could be appointed. Elsewhere, a single veterinary officer juggles cattle pounds, ABC programs, and sanitation duties. Contracting adds another layer of instability: in another municipality, sterilisation stopped for two years after a PIL challenged a tender, alleging the selected NGO was blacklisted in other states for cruelty.
Local laws add to the complications, too. Some cities impose fines and enforce bylaws, while others lack any regulatory framework at all. The result is a fragile system, overstretched, under-staffed, and riddled with gaps that struggles to match the scale of the challenge visible on city streets.
The Supreme Court’s order has put the free-ranging dog issue in sharp national focus. If extended across India, the burden on smaller cities, already struggling with rising dog and cattle populations, limited shelters, and chronic staff shortages, would be immense. While the 74th Constitutional Amendment makes animal management a municipal duty, most local governments lack the resources or clarity to act. In such fragile systems, judicial intent will likely collide with weak institutions.
Way forward: Building humane solutions
Local and global examples show that citizens, governments, NGOs, and veterinary professionals all have a role to play in humane stray dog management. In Bhutan, over 11,000 volunteers helped implement a nationwide program that sterilised and vaccinated more than 153,000 dogs, while also supporting community education and reporting unsterilised animals, achieving near 100% coverage of street dogs.
In the Netherlands, a combination of mandatory spay and neuter programs, public education campaigns, and strict enforcement of animal welfare laws, including the “Collect, Neuter, and Return” (CNR) policy, has created one of the lowest rates of stray dogs in the world, with citizens actively participating in adoption drives and responsible pet ownership initiatives.
In Thailand, oral rabies vaccination campaigns targeted free-roaming dogs that were otherwise inaccessible, achieving successful vaccination of over 65% of these animals, demonstrating how citizen-supported field efforts can reach difficult-to-access populations.
Closer to home, in Lucknow, about 30% of street dogs brought to sterilisation centres were identified and brought in by local residents, contributing to an 84% reduction in stray populations since 2019. In Dehradun, volunteers monitored dog health, maintained feeding schedules, and reported aggressive or unvaccinated animals, helping reduce the stray population by 40% since 2016. These examples show that collective action, through volunteering, reporting, responsible pet ownership, and coordinated municipal, NGO and veterinary efforts, can significantly amplify the impact of formal sterilisation and vaccination programs.
For smaller cities, real long-term solutions will need to go beyond the court orders and institutional responsibilities. While the dominant wisdom proposes sterilisation as a method to control the population of stray dogs and manage them, the evidence of its efficacy is mixed. It will require a multi-pronged approach with involvement and understanding of multiple stakeholders and address issues such as responsible dog ownership, controlled dog movements and breeding, managing the city’s waste, and veterinary care, among others.
I believe in encouraging people to work for animals by showing them how, rather than just telling them.
As animal welfare practitioners often remind us, empathy needs structure, whether through trained teams, clear procedures, or community education, to truly take root. Our conversation with Mital Khetani of Shree Karuna Foundation Trust in Rajkot highlights that compassion backed by professional systems can create lasting change in animal care. The way forward lies in turning such lessons into everyday practice, so that humane and effective management becomes part of how our cities function.
Edit: On 22nd August 2025, the Supreme Court of India revised its earlier order, directing that stray dogs must be vaccinated, dewormed, and released back to the same area, while those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour must be kept in shelters. This marks a positive step towards more humane stray dog management. The Court also directed municipal authorities to create dedicated feeding spaces in each ward, with proper signage, and prohibited feeding dogs on the streets. To enforce this, municipalities must set up helplines where violations can be reported, ensuring accountability for both individuals and organisations.
Equally important is the Court’s decision to broaden the scope of the matter beyond Delhi-NCR by impleading all States and Union Territories, along with their Animal Husbandry Departments and local bodies, to ensure uniform application of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. The Court also ordered the transfer of pending cases from High Courts to itself for consolidated consideration. By doing so, it is laying the groundwork for formulating a national policy on stray dog management that addresses systemic challenges rather than piecemeal disputes.
Research Team: Tarun Sharma, Rohit Bhatt.
Do you have adequate animal shelters in your city?
Yes
No
Additional Resources:
Our Conversation with Mital Khetani, Shree Karuna Foundation Trust on how compassion backed systems can create lasting change in animal care.
Stakeholder roles, current gaps and ways forward in stray dog management
Comments