In November 2022, three Nagpur women moved to the Supreme Court challenging the October 2022 verdict of the Bombay High Court in regard to street dogs. The order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court prohibited the feeding of stray dogs. It directed the civic authorities and police to deal sternly with anyone obstructing action against the menace of such dogs, and in appropriate cases, also register offences against them. The High Court stipulated that people interested in feeding strays must first formally adopt them, take them home, register with municipal authorities and then take care of them. Alternatively, they could put them into shelter homes. The judgment of the High Court was categorical that the stray dogs, in several instances, were a menace in public places. Many of these strays, it stated, are aggressive, ferociously wild and simply uncontrollable in their behaviour. The authorities, therefore, needed to take charge of the matter and move to detain such dogs under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Those petitioning the Supreme Court argued that the High Court order affected the rights of the street dogs and was contrary to the statutory provisions and the preceding orders of the Supreme Court. No legislation prohibited the feeding of stray dogs, and neither was it a penal offence under any statute. The Supreme Court has now stayed the order of the High Court and stated that no coercive steps in pursuance of the High Court order would be taken. It has ordered the municipal authorities to demarcate appropriate locations where the general public could feed the stray dogs.

No legislation prohibited the feeding of stray dogs, and neither was it a penal offence under any statute.

The present position in regard to street dogs has been one of sympathy and kindness, guided by constitutional and statutory provisions. Part IVA of the Indian Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of the citizens to have compassion for living creatures. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 frowns upon cruelty to animals. In Chapter III, it lists a series of excesses that can be termed as cruelty and declares such indiscretion punishable a with fine that may extend to imprisonment of three months if it is a repeat offence. The Animal Welfare Board of India, established under this Act for the protection of animals, has enunciated a policy that advises compassion and care in regard to dogs and pets. The Supreme Court has also been seized of the matter. Its overall view is that street dogs also have a right to live, and a sterilisation programme for street dogs should be vigorously pursued. If there is a clear danger on account of violent street dogs, they should be moved to shelter homes. If no other course of action is available, dogs could be culled, but under no circumstance killed. Judicial pronouncements and NGO activism seem to have weighed heavily on urban local bodies (ULBs). They have shown little inclination to act against the menace of street dogs, having generally written off street dog menace as a problem that they need to address. As a consequence, Indian cities are now home to one of the largest street dog populations on earth, standing at 62 million as per a recent report, and the largest number of rabies deaths in the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) reporting on rabies in India in 2021, stated that dogs are responsible for 99 percent of rabies transmission and this country accounts for 36 percent of world’s rabies deaths. The annual figure of rabies deaths in India, based on WHO figures would be 21,240.

The Animal Welfare Board of India, established under this Act for the protection of animals, has enunciated a policy that advises compassion and care in regard to dogs and pets.

The rest of the world does not seem to perceive the issue of street dogs in the same way as India views it. At one extreme there are countries in Asia and Africa that consume dog meat. It is estimated that about 30 million dogs are killed for human consumption annually. World Animal Protection, working on stopping animal cruelty brings out the Animal Protection Index that ranks countries around the globe according to their legislation and policy commitments to protect animals. Many countries have been found wanting in their effort towards the prevention of cruelty against animals. At the other extreme are very large numbers of people in the western world that are dog lovers and these western nations have gone to great lengths to facilitate the companionship of pet dogs through the provision of multiple dog amenities. However, most of these countries have an unqualified policy position that there is no place for dogs on the streets, despite having stringent laws against cruelty towards animals and harsher punishments than in India. Dogs must be owned or should be taken away from the roads and confined in dog pounds. Once brought to dog pounds, there is a small window during which the dogs could be adopted. Once the period is over, dogs are euthanised so that there is space to take in other dogs that keep coming in every day. Despite the United States having approximately 3,500 rescue shelters run at a cost US$ 2 billion per annum, they find themselves overwhelmed with animals. Once a pet is left at a shelter, it has about 72 hours to be adopted before it is destroyed. It is estimated that 390,000 dogs are euthanised in shelters in the US each year. In Australia, approximately 200,000 dogs are brought to animal shelters every year. About 20 percent of them are euthanised and those dogs that display very aggressive behaviour are eliminated on priority.  Similarly, it is estimated that about 20,000 dogs are put down in UK each year. While cruelty to animals cannot be condoned, this does not translate into allowing dogs free passage on the streets. News are flowing in all the time from a host of Indian cities about deaths, bites and the ferocity of street dogs, making life perilous and difficult for people, especially children and the old. The Noida canine attack was among the most ghastly, where a seven month old’s intestines were pulled out by street dogs. The child could not be saved despite a long surgery. In a recent survey, 61 percent respondents stated that stray dog attacks were common in their area. An overwhelming 90 percent of them felt that ULBs had failed to take effective steps. Besides, indiscriminate litter posed problems to city cleanliness and health and uncontrolled barking during nights denied a peaceful sleep to citizens.

News are flowing in all the time from a host of Indian cities about deaths, bites and the ferocity of street dogs, making life perilous and difficult for people, especially children and the old.

In India, the need for a sterilisation programme that cities were advised to undertake was based on the ultimate objective of reducing and eliminating street dogs. It is quite obvious that this sterilisation programme has largely failed in its objective anywhere in the country. The failure of the programme, even in the western countries, should have been an eye opener. Moreover, the costs of sterilisation programme are high. Most Indian ULBs are so cash strapped that they are struggling to perform their fundamental, obligatory duties. It is highly unrealistic, therefore, to expect them to fund a sterilisation programme of dogs. Neither can the NGOs, who have found it difficult over the years to sustain a sterilisation programme. In the above cited background, it is quite logical that street dogs should be taken to shelters and be given an opportunity to be adopted. Those that do not find favour must be disposed of without pain. What is prohibited is cruelty;not painlessly euthanising dogs. Clearly, tolerating them on streets is misplaced kindness at the cost of citizen safety.

• Urbanisation in India
• India
• India
• NGO
• street dogs
• urban local bodies
• WHO
• World Animal Protection

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.