In News:

The Supreme Court of India has directed the immediate removal of all free-ranging dogs from Delhi, Noida, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad. The Court emphasized permanent relocation of these animals to shelters, citing rising incidents of rabies and dog bites, particularly affecting children and vulnerable groups.

Key Features of the Order

• Complete Removal: All stray dogs are to be captured to ensure “stray-free” streets in urban and peri-urban areas.
• No-Release Policy: Unlike the earlier Animal Birth Control (ABC) approach, captured dogs will not be returned to their original localities but retained in shelters.
• Shelter Infrastructure: Authorities must build facilities capable of housing at least 5,000 dogs within eight weeks, prioritizing high-risk localities.
• Emergency Response: A 24×7 helpline with a four-hour response time is mandated to tackle bite incidents.
• Strict Compliance: Interference with the process will attract contempt of court, ensuring accountability.

Rationale Behind the Order

• Public Health Priority: With nearly 5,700 rabies-related deaths annually (95% from dog bites), the order seeks to directly curb a preventable disease.
• Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Children and the elderly face higher risks due to limited self-defence capacity.
• Policy Ineffectiveness: The sterilisation-centric ABC model has not adequately addressed aggressive or rabies-carrying dogs.
• Constitutional Angle: By invoking Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), the Court underlined safe mobility and freedom from fear in public spaces.
• Permanent Reform: A structural shift from temporary containment to long-term removal from public areas.

Arguments in Favour

• Public Safety: A direct life-saving intervention against rabies deaths.
• Constitutional Backing: Strengthens the right to security under Article 21.
• Urban Governance: Integrates sanitation and safety into city management.
• Accountability: Surveillance and records ensure transparency in enforcement.
• Policy Gaps Addressed: Closes loopholes of the ABC model by ending return-to-locality practices.

Concerns and Counter-Arguments

• Legal Conflict: The directive may clash with existing ABC Rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
• Animal Welfare: Overcrowded shelters risk inhumane conditions, raising ethical concerns.
• Ecological Impact: Sudden removal could disrupt rodent control and waste management functions performed by strays.
• Risk of Abuse: Lack of monitoring might lead to covert culling under the guise of relocation.
• Rights-Based Critique: May be seen as undermining the intrinsic rights of animals and compassion-based governance.

Way Forward

• Humane Shelter Models: Ensure adequate space, veterinary care, and nutrition.
• Mass Vaccination Drives: Combine removal with preventive health measures to eradicate rabies.
• Adoption and Community Participation: Promote responsible adoption under strict guidelines.
• Policy Harmonisation: Amend ABC Rules to align with SC directions and resolve legal inconsistencies.
• Awareness and Behavioural Change: Community-level campaigns on rabies prevention and civic responsibility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the tension between public health imperatives and animal welfare ethics. While it seeks to secure citizens’ right to safe public spaces, it also raises concerns of legality, humane treatment, and ecological balance. Going forward, the challenge lies in striking a balance between constitutional morality (right to life) and compassion ethics (animal welfare) through coherent policy design and ethical urban governance.