Humane Governance? The Stray Dogs Ruling and the Role of the Judiciary in Sustainable Urban Animal Management

The Supreme Court’s recent observations on the management of stray dogs have stirred a national debate that touches both urban governance and animal rights. With India’s estimated 1.5 crore stray dogs spread across its cities and villages, the issue is not merely one of compassion but also of public health, safety, and sustainable coexistence. The Court’s intervention underscores a recurring tension: can humane treatment of animals coexist with citizens’ right to a safe environment, and what role should the judiciary play in striking this delicate balance?

The stray dog debate in India is not new. Over the years, conflicting interests have polarized stakeholders—animal welfare groups advocating sterilization and vaccination programs, and residents’ associations demanding culling or relocation due to increasing incidents of dog bites. Municipal authorities, meanwhile, are

caught in the crossfire, constrained by limited resources, legal ambiguities, and public pressure. Into this vacuum steps the judiciary, often forced to mediate between compassion and pragmatism.

At the heart of the matter lies the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (amended in 2023). These legal instruments mandate sterilization and vaccination as the only lawful means of population control, explicitly prohibiting mass culling. The Supreme Court, in multiple orders, has reinforced this framework, stressing that stray dogs, like all animals, have a right to live under Article 21’s broad interpretation of the right to life. In its latest ruling, the Court has once again reminded municipal bodies of their duty to implement sterilization and vaccination programs systematically, while urging citizens to approach the issue with empathy.

Yet, critics argue that the Court’s stance is detached from ground realities. Dog bite cases in cities like Kerala, Delhi, and Hyderabad have surged, with children and the elderly often being victims. Rabies, a preventable but deadly disease, still claims thousands of lives annually in India. For affected families, judicial pronouncements rooted in animal rights may seem to ignore the urgency of human suffering. Governance, they argue, requires not just compassion but also effective mechanisms for public safety.

This tension highlights a deeper question: should the judiciary continue to dictate urban animal management policies, or should it limit itself to ensuring that legislative and executive measures are constitutionally sound? Critics warn of judicial overreach, where courts, in the absence of efficient governance, take on the mantle of policymaking. While well-intentioned, such interventions risk blurring the separation of powers and creating solutions that are legally elegant but practically unworkable.

At the same time, the judiciary’s insistence on humane governance has a moral value that cannot be dismissed. It forces the state and society to reimagine development not merely in terms of infrastructure and efficiency but also ethical responsibility toward non-human life. Sustainable urban governance, after all, is not about erasing stray dogs but creating systems— through sterilization, vaccination, and community engagement—that ensure coexistence without compromising safety.

The way forward lies in strengthening institutions rather than relying solely on judicial fiat. Municipal bodies must be adequately funded and held accountable for implementing sterilization and vaccination drives on a war footing. Public education campaigns can help reduce panic and encourage responsible behavior, such as discouraging open garbage disposal that feeds stray populations. Collaboration between local governments, NGOs, and citizen groups can create localized solutions—dog shelters, adoption drives, and rapid response units for bite cases—that address both compassion and safety.

The judiciary has played a catalytic role by placing animal welfare firmly within the discourse of rights. But its role should be one of guiding principle rather than substitute governance. Ultimately, the success of humane stray dog management will depend not on courtrooms but on streets, neighborhoods, and municipal wards where policy translates into practice.

The stray dog ruling is thus more than a legal order—it is a reminder of what humane governance ought to look like. A city that protects its most vulnerable citizens while ensuring dignity for its animals is a city truly committed to sustainability. The challenge now lies in moving beyond judicial pronouncements to building resilient, compassionate, and practical systems of coexistence.