In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India's recent focus on the nation's stray dog crisis has sparked a crucial debate on public health, constitutional rights, and the true meaning of compassion. This shift in judicial attention, moving beyond the long-standing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, is being hailed by experts as a necessary and humane step to address a growing emergency.
The Core of the Conflict: Human Rights vs. Animal Advocacy
The debate intensified following an article by D R Mehta published on January 3, 2026, in The Indian Express, which defended the current ABC strategy of sterilising and releasing dogs back onto the streets. In a sharp rebuttal dated January 7, 2026, Ryan Lobo, director of the Humane Foundation for People and Animals, argues that this approach perpetuates suffering and violates fundamental human rights.
Lobo contends that the Supreme Court is rightfully upholding Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to life and a safe environment. He presents stark statistics: India's estimated 80 million stray dogs are responsible for millions of bites annually, cause traffic accidents, spread diseases like rabies, and deposit thousands of tons of pathogenic faese daily. This, he asserts, is a public health crisis, not elitist concern.
The Court has initiated action by mandating the removal of strays from public institutions and highways. Lobo defends this, countering Mehta's criticism that the Court acted without hearing all sides. He states that when safeguarding human rights at a national scale, the Court's primary duty is to the citizens, particularly the victims of dog attacks who have long gone unheard.
Legal Mandates and Misplaced Authority
A key legal point in the argument is the role of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). Lobo clarifies that the AWBI is merely an advisory body, not the "executive authority" as presented. He highlights that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act itself tasks the AWBI with ensuring local authorities "destroy" unwanted animals when necessary.
Furthermore, Section 11(3)(b) of the PCA Act explicitly excludes the destruction of stray dogs from the definition of cruelty. Lobo accuses the AWBI of having blocked such actions for decades, contradicting its own mandate. He also points out that the ABC Rules conflict with over 60 other laws, including various municipal and panchayat acts, which allow for the removal or destruction of stray dogs.
The constitutional position is clear: animals do not have fundamental rights, a principle affirmed in the 2023 Jallikattu judgment, while humans do. Lobo argues that framing compassion as a fundamental duty cannot be used to override the fundamental rights to life and safety guaranteed to citizens.
A Global Perspective and a Proposed Path Forward
Critiquing the comparison to the Netherlands, Lobo notes that the European nation mandates the impoundment of all strays with zero release and no public feeding, leading to a minimal population that rarely requires euthanasia. He identifies a double standard: developed nations prioritise public safety through impoundment and euthanasia, while India is expected to show endless "compassion" by maintaining homeless dogs on streets, which institutionalises suffering for all.
The article rejects the notion that the poor inherently support the current ABC model, noting that they are the primary victims—queuing at rabies clinics and facing daily dangers. A tragic example cited is an elderly man in Bengaluru's Kodigehalli who was killed by ABC-released dogs that had previously killed a woman.
Ryan Lobo's proposed solution is multi-pronged and decisive:
- Repeal the ultra vires ABC Rules and enact clear euthanasia protocols under Section 38(e) of the PCA Act.
- Promote shelters to house unwanted animals, aligning with the PCA Act's objectives.
- Impose a complete ban on public feeding to reduce dog territoriality and aggression.
- Authorise controlled lethal measures in rural and wildlife areas where strays threaten livestock or biodiversity.
- Enforce strict pet licensing, leash laws, and owner liability to prevent abandonment.
The central thesis is that for overcrowded shelters and suffering animals, humane euthanasia represents true "compassion"—a quick end to unnecessary suffering as envisioned by the PCA Act, which is opposed to "unnecessary suffering," not suffering caused by human necessity. The Supreme Court's shift is a welcome move toward constitutional duty, and its full implementation is now essential for public safety and a humane resolution.
