Stray dogs are an integral part of India's urban and rural ecosystem. However, the issue of street dog management has sparked significant debate around public safety, animal welfare, and existing infrastructure. While the Supreme Court's recent order aims to address some concerns, questions remain about its practical implementation on the ground.
In an interview with TOI, co-founders of Umeed for Animals Foundation, Nikhil Mahesh and Juhi Bhattacharya, explore the key challenges related to infrastructure while focusing on the importance of humane and practically implementable solutions that balance community needs with the ethical treatment of animals.
Is the Supreme Court's Order Realistically Implementable?
According to the activists, the intent behind the Supreme Court's order is understandable, but its implementation is extremely challenging. Indian cities and villages already face severe constraints such as overcrowded shelters, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, shortage of trained personnel, and limited funding for animal birth control programs.
In such conditions, large-scale relocation of community dogs from institutional areas is neither humane nor practically feasible. Without first strengthening existing animal welfare systems, such measures risk increasing suffering and overburdening already stretched infrastructure, rather than resolving the issue in a compassionate and effective manner.
Biggest Gap Between Court Order and Municipal Capacity
The biggest gap lies in the assumption that local authorities have the infrastructure, manpower, funding, and systems required to manage India's enormous stray dog population humanely. While judicial directions may call for relocation, sheltering, sterilisation, or strict control measures, most municipalities struggle even with basic animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination programmes, making full-scale implementation of more intensive measures difficult.
Waste Management as a Root Cause
Overflowing garbage is one of the main reasons stray dog populations grow around residential areas, markets, and dumping sites. If authorities cannot consistently control waste, it becomes difficult to address the root cause of street dog concentration. Many resident welfare associations argue that expecting municipalities to simultaneously manage sterilisation, vaccination, feeding zones, and conflict prevention is unrealistic when even basic waste management remains poorly handled in many Indian cities.
Should Courts Issue Operational Directives Without Assessing Local Infrastructure?
Courts play an important role in protecting public interest and ensuring accountability, but operational directives on issues like stray dog management should ideally consider the actual infrastructure, staffing, and funding available. They should seek advice from animal welfare experts before imposing large-scale implementation requirements. Without assessing ground realities, such orders can become impractical and may create more suffering for both people and animals.
Accountability for Implementation Failures
If stray dog management policies fail, accountability cannot rest on a single group because responsibility is shared across multiple stakeholders. The court is also responsible here, as some directions may be unrealistic in practice. Effective stray dog management requires shared responsibility, scientific planning, adequate funding, and cooperation between authorities, communities, and welfare groups, instead of blame-shifting after implementation collapses.
