India's Supreme Court is currently considering a critical stance on the nation's stray dog population. Legal observers note that if the court endorses a view promoting the removal of stray dogs to shelters, it could mark a significant policy shift with far-reaching consequences.
The Core of the Controversy: Shelters vs. ABC
This potential judicial view would implicitly treat the long-standing Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme as a failure. Furthermore, it risks sidelining the principles enshrined in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Critics of this approach argue that it would push a solution that is fundamentally anthropocentric, or human-centered, while neglecting animal welfare and scientific evidence.
Animal rights advocates and public health experts have raised alarms, labeling such a shelter-centric model as scientifically unsound, fiscally reckless, and epidemiologically counterproductive. Building and maintaining vast shelter networks would impose a massive, ongoing financial burden on municipalities, with no proven long-term benefit for population control or public health.
India's Pioneering Role in Humane Stray Management
Contrary to the perception of ABC as a new or untested method, India has been a global pioneer in this field. In 1964, Dr. Chinny Krishna and the Blue Cross of India introduced the world's very first neuter-and-return programme. This groundbreaking initiative was named the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, a term chosen for its administrative simplicity and clear purpose.
The ABC model, born in Chennai, has since gained international recognition. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognises this model as the most humane and effective way to manage stray dog populations. Its success in India has led to its adoption by numerous countries worldwide, proving its efficacy over decades.
The Path Forward: Evidence Over Emotion
The current legal debate underscores a tension between quick-fix, reactive measures and sustainable, science-based policy. Proponents of the ABC programme argue that it addresses the root cause of the stray population explosion—uncontrolled breeding—while allowing vaccinated and sterilized dogs to occupy their territory, which prevents new, unvaccinated dogs from moving in.
Abandoning this for a shelter-based system, they warn, would be a regressive step. It would not only strain public finances but also fail to create a lasting solution, potentially worsening rabies control and human-animal conflict. The verdict from the Supreme Court is awaited, and its reasoning will be scrutinized for its alignment with global best practices and India's own legacy of humane animal welfare innovation.
