New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, August 22, modified its earlier ruling on the removal of stray dogs from Delhi NCR, ruling that canines must be released back into the same area after sterilisation and vaccination. Only dogs infected with rabies or considered “aggressive” will be kept in shelters.
The verdict, delivered by a special three-judge Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, has been broadened to apply across the country. All pending stray dog cases in High Courts have now been transferred to the apex court, with States and Union Territories directed to file compliance reports.
While the order protects sterilised dogs from blanket removal, activists say it leaves behind more questions than answers. Here's why:
Who Defines 'Aggressive Dogs'?
Central to the ruling is the categorisation of "aggressive" dogs. The Court has not defined what counts as aggression, raising concerns about the term's potential misuse. “This is a very fine line that has been drawn in the sand,” Deepa Talib, who heads the Anubis Tiger Foundation in Mumbai, told The Free Press Journal.
“A perfectly gentle dog can be turned aggressive within the space of ten days by constant beating or starvation. How do you explain that now?” she added.
Talib also warned that sending such dogs into confined shelters could worsen their behaviour. “First of all, an aggressive dog is not aggressive simply because he chooses to be. There is provocation, there are enough triggers which we as human beings refuse to acknowledge,” she said.
Former Union Minister and BJP leader Maneka Gandhi echoed this fear. While welcoming the safeguard that sterilised dogs will be returned to their territories, she urged the Court to define aggression.
“There are a lot of people who are not dog-friendly and may exploit the clause in the judgment and label the canine aggressive just to ensure their confinement,” she said.
Feeding Ban & 'Fear of Starvation'
The second major directive prohibits the feeding of strays in streets or public spaces. Municipal corporations must now set up designated feeding zones in each ward. Violators, the Court warned, could face legal action.
In theory, designated spaces could reduce litter and neighbourhood clashes. But activists fear delays. “Until a designated area is given, what do we do? Starve dogs for ten days until MCD decides the feeding spot?” Talib asked. “Civic bodies should be told to designate areas quickly so that within the next six hours feeding can commence," she added.
She further suggested that placing feeding spots at the start and end of lanes could help dogs avoid territorial fights and prevent human conflict. “As of now, we don’t want dogs starving. Is this a milder way of saying take them to your house and feed them?” she asked.
Deposit For Petitioners
In perhaps the most contentious part of the order, the Court directed every individual petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 and NGOs to deposit Rs 2 lakh with the Supreme Court registry within seven days. Those who fail to comply will not be allowed to appear further in the case.
The Bench said the funds would be used to build facilities and infrastructure for strays, while also discouraging frivolous or repetitive petitions. “Each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached this Court shall deposit a sum of Rs 25,000 and Rs 2 lakh respectively, with the Registry within seven days, failing which they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further. The amounts so deposited shall be utilised in the creation of infrastructure and facilities for the stray dogs,” the order read.
While the move brings accountability, smaller organisations fear it will muzzle grassroots voices. “Animal lovers often step in when cruelty or gaps in implementation go unaddressed. If speaking up gets you penalised, who do they turn to?” an activist asked.
Friday’s ruling keeps intact a crucial safeguard: sterilised and vaccinated dogs will return to their territories, preventing mass relocation. But the undefined aggression clause, the sudden ban on street feeding without immediate alternatives, and hefty financial deposits have left activists uneasy.
As Talib summed it up, “This verdict is not one to celebrate or dismiss. It’s a fine line." The real test is whether authorities can act quickly and fairly, so that both people and animals can coexist safely in our cities.
