Recently , the Supreme Court directed Delhi-NCR authorities to remove all free-ranging dogs from public spaces and relocate them permanently to shelters.
Key Directives of the Supreme Court Order  

• Immediate Removal of Stray Dogs: The Supreme Court has ordered authorities in Delhi NCR (covering Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad) to urgently round up all stray dogs and relocate them to purpose-built shelters within eight weeks. No stray dogs are to be released back into public spaces under any circumstances, regardless of sterilization status.
• Public Safety Priority: The order emphasizes that protecting infants, children, and all residents from rabies and dog bite incidents is paramount. Sentiments and animal rights cannot override public safety in this context.
• Legal Accountability: Any individual or organization obstructing dog-catching operations will be subject to contempt of court. Authorities have been urged to create teams and establish strict enforcement; resistance to the order will face immediate legal consequences.
• Infrastructure Mandate: Authorities must construct and staff shelters capable of housing at least 5,000 dogs within six to eight months. All captured dogs are to be sterilized, vaccinated, and monitored under CCTV surveillance to ensure welfare standards, but none can be released back.
• Rapid Response and Helpline: A helpline must be operational within a week to facilitate rapid removal (within four hours) of dogs involved in bite incidents.
• Record-Keeping and Victim Support: Detailed daily records of cases, shelter occupancy, and anti-rabies vaccine availability are required. Authorities must also ensure prompt medical assistance for dog bite victims.
• Controversy and Conflicting Judgments: The order conflicts with existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) laws, which require sterilization and return of strays to their original habitat. In recent sessions, two Supreme Court benches have given opposing rulings (removal vs. retention/ABC implementation), leading to confusion over which legal precedent now applies. The Chief Justice has assured a review of these contradictions.

Background & Rationale

• India has over 60 million stray dogs; Delhi’s population exceeds one million.
• Dog bites occur at near-epidemic rates, with millions of cases and thousands of rabies deaths annually. The court cited failures in the decades-old Animal Birth Control policy as insufficient to curb either attacks or disease.
• The move is positioned as upholding Article 21 (right to life and safe environment), but has drawn criticism from animal welfare advocates and logistical concerns from city authorities regarding infrastructure, staff, and funding.

Societal Response

• Resident Welfare Associations and many citizens welcome the judgment, citing relief from fear and trauma caused by stray attacks.
• Animal rights activists call the plan “unscientific,” highlighting a severe shortage of facilities and warning of psychological harm to relocated dogs. Concerns are also raised over displacement, rehoming, and humane treatment, with notable political and civil society critiques.
• Call for Adoption & Responsible Ownership: Advocates and public figures are urging residents to consider adopting Indie dogs, questioning whether simply removing strays without changing attitudes and laws around pet abandonment and feeding will solve the root problem.

 Legal Conflicts Surrounding the Supreme Court's Stray Dog Orders

Contradictory Supreme Court Bench Orders

Two different benches of the Supreme Court have issued conflicting directives on managing stray dogs.

• The most recent (August 2025) order directs immediate removal and permanent sheltering of all strays in Delhi NCR, forbidding their return to public spaces under any condition.
• In contrast, earlier Supreme Court instructions, and the interpretation supported by existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, required sterilization, vaccination, and return of stray dogs to their original locations—not permanent removal.

As a result, authorities and local bodies face legal ambiguity about which Supreme Court order takes precedence, especially since Supreme Court rulings generally form binding precedent, but cannot be implemented if they directly contradict each other.

Conflict with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules

The Supreme Court’s new order directly conflicts with statutory ABC Rules and earlier apex court rulings, which legally mandate that:

• Dogs must be returned post-sterilization to their original areas.
• Strays can only be permanently removed if they are incurably ill, rabid, or mortally wounded.

These rules are anchored in both central legislation and animal welfare policy, creating a regulatory and operational dilemma for city authorities required to enforce both sets of instructions.

Issues of Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court’s order cites Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (right to life and safety) to justify prioritizing public protection over animal rights.
Animal welfare advocates argue that mass removal and permanent sheltering, especially without adequate facilities, could breach:

• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), which obligates humane treatment of animals.
• Article 51A(g), which enshrines the duty to show compassion to living creatures.

Unclear Precedent and Legal Remedy

• Because Supreme Court benches at equivalent authority have issued opposing instructions, only a constitutionally larger or specially convened bench can resolve the conflict.
• The Chief Justice has acknowledged this contradiction and reportedly scheduled a review—until resolved, uncertainty persists over what authorities must legally do.

Risk of Contempt

• The new order threatens contempt proceedings against anyone hindering stray removal.
• However, persons following earlier ABC-based orders could also face legal jeopardy due to non-compliance with the latest Supreme Court directive, putting officials, NGOs, and volunteers in a precarious legal situation.

In sum, the legal conflicts arise from simultaneous Supreme Court instructions that directly contradict each other and the established ABC laws, causing administrative confusion, risking contempt actions against both sets of actors, and raising constitutional and animal welfare law concerns. Resolution awaits further Supreme Court clarification or legislative intervention.

Summary Table: Supreme Court Order vs. ABC Rules
 

Directive/Issue	Supreme Court August 2025 Order	ABC Rules (Prior Policy)
Stray Management	Permanent removal & sheltering	Sterilize, vaccinate, return
Release to Public Spaces	Prohibited	Mandated post-sterilization
Contempt for Interference	Enforced, strict	Not specified
Animal Welfare Standards	Shelters, CCTV, immunization	Community care, limited shelter
Timeline	8 weeks for complete removal	Indefinite/progressive

 
The Supreme Court’s order is a landmark legal and social development, aiming to resolve the urban stray crisis by prioritizing public safety and enforcing infrastructural and legal accountability. However, conflicting judgments and widespread dissent indicate ongoing debate about long-term viability, humane treatment, and policy coherence.  

Download Pdf