The Supreme Court’s order of August 11, 2025, directing that Delhi’s free-roaming dogs be placed in animal shelters, triggered widespread debate and outrage. Three days later, on August 14, the Court reserved the order following multiple appeals. On August 22, it reversed course, ruling that relocating dogs to already overcrowded shelters was impractical and inconsistent with humane treatment.
The episode highlighted how questions of animal rights, public health, and urban governance are easily reduced to emotive binaries: dog lovers versus bite victims, or stray dog rights versus human safety. Some critics dismissed the initial order as a distraction from the voter roll controversy, while others pointed to media narratives that framed the issue as a “dog menace.”
READ | Trump’s Europe script: Putin as equal, others as serfs
A narrow and misleading discourse
Animal rights advocates decried the first judgment as both ethically troubling and unworkable, while also acknowledging public health risks from unchecked dog populations. The modified order addressed some of these concerns, but the larger conversation remains narrowly framed. The language of a “dog menace” puts the onus of the problem on the animals, while ignoring human responsibility for their proliferation. The tendency to see the issue in isolation, rather than as part of the larger human-animal relationship, makes it harder to address comprehensively.
Equally limiting is the portrayal of animal rights as little more than lifestyle preferences. This framing sidesteps the question of whether animals possess agency and deserve protections in their own right. Finally, the debate reflects a familiar instinct of “othering”—the urge to eliminate that which does not fit the desired order of society. In the process, what should be a discussion on coexistence turns into a series of personalised conflicts.
Historical responsibility and human agency
Dogs have co-evolved with humans over centuries. Their numbers have not grown independently of human activity, but rather as a by-product of urbanisation, waste generation, and pet abandonment. To cast them as hostile or as a nuisance is to ignore the systems that humans have created, which have made the animals vulnerable in the first place. The same applies to cows, buffaloes, donkeys and other domesticated animals whose destiny is tied to the choices of their human co-habitants.
This imposes on humans a historical responsibility. These animals cannot return to the wild—habitats are shrinking—and they should not be discarded as if they were tools whose usefulness has expired. Recognising them as co-inhabitants, not disposable nuisances, is part of the ethical and sustainable path forward.
The anthropocentric bias
The debate also reflects the deeply anthropocentric lens through which humans view the natural world. Dog bites grab headlines, but cruelty against dogs seldom finds space in the news. More broadly, humans classify animals into categories—pets, vermin, livestock, entertainment, or cultural symbols—each governed by different laws and attitudes. The categorisation legitimises exploitation and conceals the fact that animals share the ability to feel pain and distress.
Examples abound: horses and mules continue to be used as beasts of burden in pilgrimages and construction sites; livestock is reared with little concern for welfare; and wild animals are caged for human amusement. The imbalance of power ensures that humans dominate and, often, oppress them.
Reimagining animal rights
The idea that animal rights or vegan advocacy is simply an elite imposition is misleading. Across communities, people build emotional bonds with street animals. The notion of “love” for dogs being a private preference, as implied in Justice JB Pardiwala’s question on why dog lovers do not take strays into their homes, reduces the debate to personal choice. In truth, animal rights are not about preferences but about ensuring basic freedoms for beings who cannot represent themselves.
Seen this way, the Court’s modified order marked progress. By recognising the right of dogs to remain in their known spaces, it implicitly acknowledged the principle of freedom for non-human animals—a step beyond framing them as objects of affection or irritation.
Human biases and the politics of elimination
The earlier order also mirrored how dominant groups deal with perceived threats. Whether the “other” is immigrants, minorities, or animals, the instinct is to exclude or eliminate. Political leaders often exploit such insecurities. Urban elites too fall into this pattern, with Resident Welfare Associations applauding the first Supreme Court order in much the same way that they have opposed tenants who do not conform to their notions of respectability.
In the case of animals, such instincts are easier to apply, since they are rarely considered bearers of rights. The bias lies not only in privileging human safety over animal welfare, but in extending exclusionary attitudes to all those deemed inconvenient to the dominant order.
A practical roadmap
The solution to the problem of stray dogs is neither novel nor untested. The World Health Organisation and India’s own rules recommend sterilisation, vaccination, and year-round care. Countries from Latin America to South Asia have implemented such measures with measurable success. In Chile and other Latin American cities, mass immunisation campaigns reduced rabies cases by 90 per cent. Sri Lanka and Thailand saw sharp declines in rabies deaths through sustained vaccination drives.
Closer home, experiments in Himachal Pradesh’s Spiti Valley showed how local participation can make a difference. Here, Peepal Farm and volunteers addressed dog aggression by tackling food scarcity and carrying out sterilisation drives. These efforts underline that success depends on political commitment, active participation by NGOs, and mobilisation of communities. Complementary measures such as adoption drives, and stronger regulation of breeding and abandonment, must reinforce the strategy.
Unresolved questions
Yet the Court’s new order leaves several questions unanswered. How are “aggressive” dogs to be identified, and by whom? Who will oversee feeding points? Municipal bodies are burdened with responsibility, but dog–wildlife conflicts in rural areas demand a wider institutional framework.
Animal welfare cannot be dismissed as an “urban elite” concern. It is a question of rights, justice, and ecological balance. Just as wildlife protection requires a professionalised system, so too does dog management. Without a framework that provides clear functions, accountability, and resources, the debate will continue to circle around crisis-driven responses.
At its core, the debate is about how humans objectify animals—granting or denying rights depending on their perceived usefulness. As long as animals are seen as disposable, the solutions will remain partial. By extending its order nationwide, the Supreme Court has created an opportunity to move beyond reactive measures.
What is needed is a shift to treating animals as part of the development process, not outside it. That requires a framework grounded in science and ethics, one that sees coexistence—not elimination—as the guiding principle. Only then will the issue of free-roaming dogs be addressed in a manner that balances public health, ethical responsibility, and the demands of sustainability.
Chaitanya Talreja is Assistant Professor of Economics at Shiv Nadar University Chennai and Barnana Bhattacharjee, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Mekliganj College, Cooch Behar, West Bengal.