CJI Gavai to Review Delhi Stray Dog Relocation Order Amid Legal and Welfare Concerns
New Delhi, August 13 (TheTrendingPeople.com) — The Supreme Court’s recent directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR within eight weeks has triggered a fierce debate between public safety advocates and animal welfare defenders. On Wednesday, a plea challenging the order was mentioned before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who responded with a measured assurance:
“I will look into it.”
The order, issued on Monday by a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol, had mandated that all stray canines be rounded up and housed in shelters “to be created by appropriate authorities.” The court also authorised contempt proceedings against individuals obstructing the removal drive and criticised the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules for requiring sterilised dogs to be returned to their original localities.
Calling the rule “unreasonable and absurd,” the bench remarked:
“Whether sterilised or not, society must feel free and safe. You should not have any stray dog roaming around.”
A City Without Permanent Animal Shelters
The reality on the ground, however, reveals a significant logistical hurdle. Delhi currently has no permanent lifetime-care shelters for strays. Instead, it operates just 20 temporary Animal Birth Control centres with a combined capacity for only 4,000–5,000 animals — far short of the estimated 3–4 lakh street dogs in the national capital.
Animal rights groups argue that this gap makes the Supreme Court’s eight-week deadline unworkable, warning of potential overcrowding, poor animal welfare, and even unlawful culling if shelters cannot be built in time.
Legal Tensions With Previous Supreme Court Rulings
The lawyer who mentioned the matter to CJI Gavai pointed out that the latest directions directly conflict with the Supreme Court’s May 9, 2024 judgment in a long-running set of petitions over stray dog management.
In that ruling, the bench of Justices S.R. Maheshwari and Pankaj Karol had explicitly stated that “under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines,” reaffirming compassion for all living beings as a constitutional value. Authorities were directed to act “in line with the mandate and spirit” of prevailing legislation — notably the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
The 2024 judgment also emphasised that sterilisation and vaccination programmes should be the primary tools for managing stray dog populations and that sterilised animals must be returned to their original locations.
Public Reaction: Relief or Risk?
The Monday order has polarised public opinion:
- Supporters say removing strays will reduce dog bites, rabies risk, and public nuisance. Several residents’ welfare associations have welcomed the decision, calling it “long overdue” for urban safety.
- Critics — including veterinarians, animal welfare organisations, and some legal experts — argue that mass removal disrupts canine territorial behaviour, potentially increasing aggression in remaining populations and escalating human-dog conflicts.
Dr. Neha Kapoor, a Delhi-based animal behaviourist, told TheTrendingPeople.com:
“When you suddenly displace dogs from their territories, other unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs often move in. This can increase bite incidents and disease spread, the exact opposite of what the order aims to achieve.”
The ABC Rules Under Fire
The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 — notified by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying — are at the heart of this legal tussle. These rules require:
- Sterilisation and vaccination of stray dogs.
- Returning sterilised dogs to their original locations.
- Prohibition of relocation except in cases of extreme threat to human life.
While the recent SC bench called these provisions “absurd,” animal welfare groups say they are in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for controlling stray dog populations and rabies.
Impact on Governance and Society
Implementing the removal order will demand:
- Massive infrastructure investment to build new shelters.
- Coordination between municipal bodies, state governments, and NGOs.
- Possible legal amendments to reconcile the conflicting court orders and statutory rules.
Economically, this could stretch municipal budgets, while socially, it risks sparking protests from animal rights activists — particularly in a city with a large community of dog feeders and rescuers.
What Happens Next?
The CJI’s statement — “I will look into it” — suggests the matter may soon be formally listed for a detailed hearing, potentially before a larger bench. If so, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to uphold, modify, or stay the Monday order.
Any decision will need to balance:
- Public safety concerns about stray dog attacks.
- Constitutional and statutory protections for animal welfare.
- Practical feasibility of mass sheltering within the set timeline.
Final Thoughts — TheTrendingPeople.com
Delhi’s stray dog crisis is a collision point between two constitutional values: the right to safety and the duty of compassion toward living beings. The Supreme Court’s latest order aims to restore civic order, but risks clashing with established animal welfare laws and scientific best practices.
As the CJI weighs the plea, the path forward must be informed by evidence, not impulse. Without adequate infrastructure and humane planning, mass removal could create more problems than it solves — for both people and the animals themselves.
The capital’s challenge is clear: safety for citizens and dignity for its street animals are not mutually exclusive. But finding that balance will require more than court orders — it will require a humane urban policy backed by political will, funding, and science.