The recent directive by the Delhi court advocating for stray dogs to be shifted into shelters raises critical scientific, logistical, and ecological questions. With an estimated population exceeding 10 lakhs, the feasibility of constructing and maintaining adequate shelters is questionable, both in terms of financial resources and infrastructure. Large congregations of dogs within confined spaces could create conditions favorable for disease outbreaks, including zoonoses, endoparasitic infestations, and inter-canine viral infections. Such an approach may inadvertently worsen public health risks. Moreover, stray dogs play a subtle ecological role in controlling urban rodent populations, particularly rats, which are potential reservoirs of leptospirosis and other vector-borne diseases. Removing dogs from streets could disrupt this predator-prey dynamic, unintentionally escalating rodent-related health hazards.
Alternatively, evidence-based public health measures such as the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program, mass sterilization, and rabies vaccination campaigns have shown impact in reducing stray dog populations and human rabies cases without disturbing urban ecosystems. Hence, there is a pressing need to scientifically assess whether sheltering is a sustainable strategy or if reinforced sterilization and vaccination programs provide a more effective balance between animal welfare, disease prevention, and ecosystem stability.
Your point about the ecological function of stray dogs in regulating rodent populations is particularly striking, as it underscores the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but ecologically disruptive interventions. Removing one species from an urban ecosystem often creates cascading effects, and rodents—as reservoirs for leptospirosis and plague—pose even greater threats to human health.
Global best practices also support your alternative: the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program coupled with systematic rabies vaccination has shown measurable success in countries like Sri Lanka and Bhutan. Strengthening these programs, along with public education on responsible waste disposal (to reduce food sources for strays), seems a more balanced and sustainable approach than large-scale sheltering.
Perhaps what is needed is a multi-sectoral framework—where public health authorities, municipal bodies, ecologists, and animal welfare organizations collaborate to refine sterilization and vaccination coverage, while also monitoring ecological shifts. This could ensure a humane yet scientifically grounded solution that protects both people and animals.
A 3 Judge bench of SC has reversed the 2 Judge bench order of relocating street dogs into shelters and emphasized the provisions of Animal Birth Control Act and Rules framed thereunder wherein street dogs are to be returned to their original area after neutering and vaccination.
Unfortunately the provisions of Animal Birth Control Act have never been implemented in the right earnest by the concerned executing agencies and therefore one is not in a position to objectively comment on the limitations of this approach and issues that may emerge. Hope that the situation will change now.
Thank you for sharing this important update, Rajiva. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the balance between public health, animal welfare, and community safety. The Animal Birth Control Act has a sound framework, but as you rightly note, implementation has been the real challenge. Hopefully, with stronger accountability and collaboration between municipal bodies, civil society, and veterinary services, we can see more humane and sustainable management of street dog populations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism