A Supreme Court directive ordering the removal of all stray dogs from the streets of Delhi-NCR has sparked widespread criticism, with Chief Justice of India BR Gavai now indicating that the matter may be revisited.

Earlier this week, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance of rising dog bite incidents and rabies cases, calling the situation “grim.” The court directed authorities to ensure that all stray dogs be captured and housed in shelters within eight weeks, stating, “We are not doing this for us. It is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest.”

However, the order has since faced mounting opposition from animal welfare organisations, public figures, and sections of civil society. The move was welcomed by several Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) but slammed by activists who questioned the practicality, legality, and humanitarian implications of such mass displacement.

On Wednesday, a separate 2024 petition—previously filed over civic inaction regarding sterilisation drives—was mentioned before the Chief Justice’s bench. The plea argued that irregular sterilisation efforts by municipal authorities in Delhi were contributing to the increase in dog bite cases. In response, CJI Gavai said, “I will look into it,” though the matter has not yet been listed for hearing.

The situation became more complex when the counsel raised an earlier ruling from May 2024, issued by a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari. That judgment had closed ongoing litigation on stray dog management following the introduction of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. Crucially, it reaffirmed constitutional principles of compassion for animals and held that “under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines.” It also directed that any future conflicts in this area be resolved by competent constitutional courts.

Activists argue that the latest court directive violates the spirit of this earlier ruling, especially since the ABC Rules require that sterilised dogs be returned to the locations they were picked up from. The new bench, however, dismissed that requirement, labelling it “unreasonable and absurd.” Justice Pardiwala remarked, “Whether sterilised or not, society must feel free and safe. You should not have any stray dogs roaming around.”

Contempt Warning Issued as Dog Relocation Order Faces Backlash

In addition, the court ordered contempt proceedings against individuals who obstruct the relocation drive. The backlash was swift and widespread. Actor and animal rights supporter John Abraham reportedly sent an urgent appeal to the Chief Justice urging a reconsideration. Prominent activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi described the order as “impractical,” “financially unviable,” and harmful to the ecological balance of the region.

Echoing those concerns, Dr Mini Aravindan, Senior Director of Veterinary Affairs at PETA India, warned that forced removal of stray dogs was ineffective and could even worsen the issue. “Communities think of neighbourhood dogs as family, and the displacement and jailing of dogs is not scientific and has NEVER worked…It will also ultimately do nothing to curb the dog population, reduce rabies or prevent dog bite incidents,” she said in a statement.

While civic bodies now scramble to comply with the order, questions remain about the feasibility of building shelters on such a large scale, especially amid budget constraints. Critics also argue that removing dogs from familiar surroundings may trigger more aggressive behaviour and disrupt the urban ecosystem.

Although the Chief Justice’s remark—“I will look into it”—offers some hope to concerned citizens and animal lovers, the matter is yet to be formally taken up for hearing. Until then, both sides of the debate continue to make their voices heard in what is shaping up to be a deeply divisive national issue.