Impossibility of Enforcing Supreme Court’s Stray Dogs Mandate in Delhi

The new action of the Supreme Court of India on 27 May 2018, to clear of all stray dogs in the streets of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and to receive them in shelters, already stands as a scorching i.e. burning debate. Although the mandate was introduced as a means of addressing the issue of public safety, a closer look would show that it is full of legal, logistical, and ethical obstacles which make its complete implementation impossible. Its order, one might add, is a legal and practical morass, due to the sheer number of dogs involved and their absence of the infrastructure to house them, directing clashes with extant animal welfare laws.

The Numbers Game: An overpopulated population and insufficient infrastructure

The failure of the present system lies at the center, with an epically large volume of the issue compared to the resources to handle it. It is estimated that there is a large number of stray dogs in Delhi alone calculated to be between 10 lakh and 100 lakh as per different estimations. The order by the Supreme Court directs that civic institutions such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) establish shelters having an accommodation capacity of approximately 5000 dogs within a short period.

This figure is a fraction of a drop in the ocean. The few animal control facilities MCD now operates only have capacity to accommodate a few thousand dogs at a given time and that is only on a temporary basis; not as a permanent residence There would need to be immense and urgent structural expansion to accommodate even a small fraction of the number of stray dogs present, and this is just simply not possible within the allotted time. According to a senior civic official, constructing and taking care of all the stray dogs in Delhi may mean exorbitant amounts of money ( up to 11 crores ) per day, which a municipality struggling with a rather critical financial condition can hardly sustain.

Logistically, it is intimidating. To gather, haul and house hundreds of thousands of dogs would demand a gargantuan army of trained hands, a flotilla of vehicles and acres of territory–none of which are readily forthcoming. The imperative of making all localities free of stray dogs can, in this case, be referred to as a utopian state of ideals that do not relate to the ground reality of a city full of millions of animals, including stray dogs.

Clash with prevailing Laws and Ethical Puzzles

The order made by the Supreme Court in its present form seems to be directly contradictory to the legal system that aims at controlling stray animals in India. The 2023 implementation of the Animal Birth Control (dogs) Rules that replaced the 2001 rules is the basis of Indian policy concerning stray dogs. The rules are founded on the model globally accepted and scientifically tested as Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR). The basic principle associated with CNVR is sterilization and vaccination of stray dogs followed by their putting back in their original territories. The process also allows humanely managing the population and avoids a vacuum effect, where fresh non-sterilised dogs present in other regions would enter the territory left empty.

This is against Cardinal Tenet because it was directed by the Supreme Court to disarm and incarcerate dogs permanently. It is also learnt that the animal welfare board of India, a statutory body, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 has advised against displacement of stray dogs as added reasons to this effect pointing to the possible cause of greater suffering and additional risks to the health of people in the future. Confining sterilized and vaccinated dogs in crowded, alien shelters would break their social structures, make them highly stressed and may result in their aggression. The order criminalizes a humane and legally allowed method effectively, leaving a grey area in the law that is being fought over by civic organizations and animal welfare groups.

Moreover, this order brings serious ethical concerns. We as a society have implying fundamental responsibilities under the Indian Constitution i.e., under Article no. 51A(g) which stipulates that we must be merciful to all living things. Even the Supreme Court in earlier verdicts has taken down the extension of the right of life to animals as it considers animals as sentient beings. The forced imprisonment of healthy animals that are doing the entire lives of the street is cruelty in itself that goes against both the letter and the spirit of such legal and constitutional provisions. This order has placed the convenience of humans before the welfare of animals in a legally and morally dubious manner.

Costs and the feasibility gap The financial cost burden The feasibility gap

The economic consequences of the order of the court are appalling and, to put it simply, unsustainable. According to initial estimations, the expense of shifting and housing the thought to be approximately 400,000 stray dogs in Delhi would translate into thousands of crores of rupees. This would not be a once in a lifetime expense but on a daily basis spent on food, medical attention and personnel. In this context, one will find that the probable cost of sheltering stray dogs would be the same, or in fact more than the annual budget of approximately four hundred million rupees allocated to the department of public health in Delhi.

It would further be a cost burden for the already cash-strapped Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). So where will this money be generated? Using this huge amount of money on such an unproven model of dog management instead of essential services such as sanitation, education and even health is a serious policy decision that would pose bad social consequences. Although there are some weaknesses in the current Animal Birth Control (ABC) program, it is still much more economical as opposed than other forms of population control since it cost ₹1,000 per dog to sterilize and inoculate in most cases. The solution that has been proposed by the court is not only impractical due to logistical reasons, but it can also be described as economically disastrous.

The Way Forward, A Plea of Legal Indoctrinancies and Practical Probes

The requirement created by the Supreme Court, as much as it reflects a real heartfelt concern about the well-being of citizens, is a classic illustration of a legal order that cannot be executed because it is out of touch with reality. This should not be solved by terminating a mass relocation which is practically impossible but rather through the strict and steadfast implementation of laws that are already in place.

The legal system for handling stray dogs in India is already present. It must concentrate on making the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 stronger. This means that:

• Increase sterilization and vaccination campaigns: This is the most decent and humane approach to the population control of stray dogs, which implies a rapid rate of sterilization. This will need increased spending, enhanced infrastructure at ABC centers and it will also need increased coordination between the civic authorities and the NGOs.
• Controlling the dog population: Quite a number of stray dogs are dumped as pets. Tough legislation on pet registration, compulsory microchips and abandonment penalties would contribute to curtailing the addition of new strays to the streets.
• Establishing feeding zones: It is common to find that, when humans and dogs fight, it is based on the fights about who eats where. As it is known ( Rule 20 OF THE ABC Rules, 2023), the establishment of hygienic feeding areas would be worthwhile in stabilization of dog populations, reduction of inter-dog conflicts and ease of stray dog vaccination and sterilization campaigns.
• Enlightenment: To alleviate such incidents, there should be some form of enlightenment for people about the proper way of dealing with rodent dogs and the need to treat them in a humane manner to improve their co-existence.

To end with, the order of the Supreme Court would be considered a paradox of law. It is the order that would go against the law and make it impossible in banking and administrative challenges, because of its unresolvability. It is clear that the way out to a safer and more humane urban environment, where animals are not abandoned, is the strict and humane usage of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. It is not a solution but a prescription for logistical confusion, moral turmoil and squandering taxpayer dollars by imprisoning populations by the hundreds in the current such directive that calls for mass incarceration. An ethical and statutory dead-end that Delhi civic organizations, in all practical and legal senses cannot get out of. The question poses the need to reconsider the directive and apply again to the principles of law and animal welfare that were already established.