The Supreme Court Judgment That Stripped Delhi’s Street Dogs Of ‘Freedom’

If the guardians of the Constitution themselves betray compassion, who will defend the voiceless? If the protectors of law rewrite it to suit convenience, who will guard the guardians? And if the apex court of the land ignores its own precedent, what remains of justice?

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling ordering the relocation of stray dogs in New Delhi to shelters has been hailed by some as a “solution” to human–animal conflict. In truth, it is an assault — on the dogs, on ecological balance, on fiscal prudence, and on the very principles the Court itself upheld less than a decade ago.

The Constitutional Betrayal

Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to “have compassion for living creatures.” In its wisdom, the Supreme Court itself once recognized that this duty extends to all state organs, including the judiciary.

In Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 691/2009, (decided on March 9, 2016) the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice R. Banumati, categorically held:

“Stray dogs have the right to live, and relocation or culling is prohibited except as provided under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.”

The ABC Rules, 2001 — framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — explicitly forbid relocation of stray dogs from their territories except in cases of incurable disease or rabid aggression. Dogs are territorial animals; uprooting them not only inflicts cruelty but also triggers territorial fights, increases aggression, and destabilizes community safety.

By ordering relocation en masse, the Court has in effect sanctioned a practice it previously outlawed, violating the ABC Rules and undermining its own precedent.

When the Judiciary Violates Its Own Precedent

The Delhi order is not just a reversal of the 2016 Supreme Court ruling — it also contradicts multiple High Court judgments:

1.    People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (PEST) v. State of Goa & Ors., Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2005, [Bombay High Court, Appellate Side]

Bombay HC held relocation destroys the territorial balance of dogs, increases the risk of rabies, and violates ABC Rules. The court directed sterilization and vaccination, not removal.

2.  Gauri Maulekhi v. Government of Uttarakhand & Ors., Writ Petition (PIL) No. 41 of 2013, High Court of Uttarakhand
 Uttarakhand HC ruled that street dogs have a constitutional right to live without abuse or displacement; the court urged creation of safe zones instead.

3. M. R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 28255 of 2011 (Ker. H.C.), 2015

Kerala HC struck down municipal relocation orders, declaring ABC Rules binding and relocation as illegal and counterproductive.

By sidestepping these judgments, the apex court has essentially legitimized an act the law calls a crime.

The Practical & Fiscal Absurdity

Building and running dog shelters for thousands of animals is not a “solution” — it is a logistical and financial nightmare:

Infrastructure Costs:
Land acquisition, shelter construction, ventilation, drainage, quarantine facilities.

Recurring Costs:
Veterinary staff, caretakers, food, vaccinations, sterilization, sanitation.

Operational Risks:
Overcrowding, spread of disease, inhumane living conditions. 

In Delhi alone, such a project could run into Rs.15,000 crore over a decade — money siphoned from taxpayers that could otherwise fund hospitals, schools, clean water, or women’s safety programs.

And here’s the cruel irony: community dog feeders already perform much of this work for free, saving the government crores annually. They provide food, monitor health, and alert vets — all without a rupee from the state.

Why Street Dogs Matter

Delhi’s street dogs are more than furry silhouettes on the pavement. They are guardians of the night:

Prevent Theft & Robbery:
Their barks deter criminals and alert residents. 

Protect Women:
Reports show dogs have intervened to scare off stalkers, eve-teasers, and potential assailants.

Ecosystem Role:
They help control rodent populations, indirectly reducing vector-borne diseases.

Remove them, and the vacuum will be filled by unmonitored packs or wild animals, making streets less safe.

Relocation is Slow Death

For a territorial animal, forced removal is not just displacement — it is a death sentence. Dogs lose familiar food sources, water points, and protection from their pack. Many die within weeks due to stress, starvation, or fights in alien territories.

This is not just impractical. It is inhumane. It is unconstitutional.

It is illegal under the very laws the Court once upheld.

A Better Path Forward

Human–animal conflict in cities is real, but the solution is coexistence, not captivity:

Strengthen ABC Programs:
Fund sterilization and vaccination drives with real accountability.

Support Community Feeders:
Recognize and assist them as informal partners in public health. 

Public Education:
Teach communities to understand and manage dog behavior.

Urban Planning:
Design shared spaces that reduce territorial stress.

Fast-Track Dispute Redressal:
Create municipal mediation cells for dog-related complaints.

The Final Question

If we, the so-called “apex” of evolution, cannot defend the rights of loyal, sentient beings who have lived alongside us for millennia, what moral right do we have to call ourselves human?

If ‘humaneness’ is gone, “human” is just a biological label.

And just as God ‘without divinity’ is no God — man ‘without compassion’ is no man.