Context:

• On 11 August, the Supreme Court of India (SC) ordered relocation of all street dogs in Delhi to shelters within eight weeks, following a rise in fatal attacks on infants.
• While the move addresses public safety concerns, it raises legal, constitutional, and governance issues—especially in the context of animal rights, judicial overreach, and municipal governance failure.

Background of the Case:

• Trigger: The apex court took suo motu cognisance of media reports on fatal street dog attacks.
• Concerns: Threat to infants, children, and elderly from unvaccinated street dogs.
• Historical context: Human–canine conflict has been a recurring issue in India, debated across courts and policy forums.

Key Issues with the Order:

• Violation of existing law:
  • It contradicts -
    • The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
    • The PCA (Animal Birth Control) Rules, 2023 - prohibit relocation, mandate scientific population control.
  • Implication: Undermines rule of law and sets a precedent for ignoring legal frameworks.
• Ignoring judicial precedent:
  • Violates the stare decisis principle (to stand by things decided).
  • The SC had already settled the matter in the Animal Welfare Board of India vs People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2024).
  • Frequent reopening of settled issues erodes public faith in judiciary and diverts state resources from implementation.
• Violation of natural justice:
  • Principle of Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) breached.
  • Requests for impleadment by relevant parties ignored; suggestions from amicus curiae dismissed.
  • The order lacked evidence-based reasoning, scientific grounding, and feasibility assessment.
• Contradiction with fundamental duties:
  • Article 51A(g) of the Constitution: Citizens have a duty to show compassion to living creatures.
  • Threatening action against those opposing relocation undermines this constitutional duty.

Underlying Governance Failure - Failure of Local Authorities:

• Inadequate implementation of humane Animal Birth Control (ABC) and anti-rabies vaccination programmes.
• Ineffective euthanasia of confirmed rabid dogs.
• Poor solid waste management, contributing to rising stray dog numbers.

Critical Analysis of the Order:

• Judicial overreach: Court bypassed existing statutory mechanisms and municipal responsibilities.
• Short-term fix: The Court has not considered the impact of enforced dog sheltering on public health, public safety, and on the public exchequer. Relocation may worsen issues like overcrowded shelters.
• Root cause neglected: Villainising street dogs is a convenient smokescreen to hide the total failure of the state machinery (the third tier of government in particular) in performing their legal duties.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen local governance: Effective implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 and vaccination drives.
• Evidence-based judicial orders: Consider scientific studies and public health data.
• Public awareness: Promote responsible pet ownership and compassion towards animals.
• Multi-stakeholder approach: Collaboration between judiciary, executive, NGOs, and communities.
• Prevent polarisation: Avoid framing the issue as humans vs animals; focus on systemic failures.

Conclusion:

• In the future, addressing human–canine conflict will require data-driven, humane, and community-based interventions that align with constitutional duties, scientific evidence, and sustainable urban governance.
• By empowering the third tier of government and ensuring strict adherence to the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, India can move towards a balanced approach where public safety, animal welfare, and legal integrity coexist in harmony.