Stray dogs are an integral part of India’s urban and rural ecosystem. But the issue of street dog management has sparked significant debate around public safety, animal welfare, and existing infra. While SC’s recent order aims to address some concerns, questions remain about its practical implementation on the ground.
In an interview with TOI, co-founders of Umeed for Animals Foundation, Nikhil Mahesh and Juhi Bhattacharya, explore the key challenges related to infra while focusing on the importance of humane, and practically implementable solutions that balance community needs with the ethical treatment of animals.
Q. Do you think the Supreme Court’s order on stray dogs is realistically implementable on the ground?
A. Not entirely. Its implementation is extremely challenging. Our cities and villages already face severe constraints such as overcrowded shelters, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, shortage of trained personnel, and limited funding for animal birth control programs.
In such conditions, large-scale relocation of community dogs from institutional areas is neither humane nor practically feasible. Without first strengthening existing animal welfare systems, such measures risk increasing suffering and overburdening already stretched infrastructure, rather than resolving the issue in a compassionate and effective manner.
A. Funds and infrastructure. The biggest gap between court orders and actual municipal capacity lies in the assumption that local authorities have the infrastructure, manpower, funding, and systems required to manage India’s enormous stray dog population humanely.
While judicial directions may call for relocation, sheltering, sterilisation, or strict control measures, most municipalities struggle even with basic animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination programmes, making full-scale implementation of more intensive measures difficult.
Q. Many animal activists say authorities cannot even manage waste properly. How can they realistically manage sterilisation, vaccination, feeding zones etc?
A. That’s true. Overflowing garbage is one of the main reasons stray dog populations grow around residential areas, markets, and dumping sites. If authorities cannot consistently control waste, it becomes difficult to address the root cause of street dog concentration. Many animal activists argue that expecting municipalities to simultaneously manage sterilisation, vaccination, feeding zones, and conflict prevention is unrealistic when even basic waste management remains poorly handled in many Indian cities.
Q. Should courts issue operational directives without first assessing local infrastructure and funding availability?
A. Courts play an important role in protecting public interest and ensuring accountability, but operational directives on issues like stray dog management should ideally consider the actual infrastructure, staffing, and funding available, and seek advice from animal welfare experts before imposing large-scale implementation requirements. Without assessing ground realities, such orders can become impractical and may create more suffering for both people and animals.
Q. If implementation fails, who should be held accountable?
A. If stray dog management policies fail, accountability cannot rest on a single group because responsibility is shared across multiple stakeholders. The court is also responsible here, as some directions may be unrealistic in practice.
Effective stray dog management requires shared responsibility, scientific planning, adequate funding, and cooperation between authorities, communities, and welfare groups, instead of blame-shifting after implementation collapses.
In an interview with TOI, co-founders of Umeed for Animals Foundation, Nikhil Mahesh and Juhi Bhattacharya, explore the key challenges related to infra while focusing on the importance of humane, and practically implementable solutions that balance community needs with the ethical treatment of animals.
Q. Do you think the Supreme Court’s order on stray dogs is realistically implementable on the ground?
A. Not entirely. Its implementation is extremely challenging. Our cities and villages already face severe constraints such as overcrowded shelters, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, shortage of trained personnel, and limited funding for animal birth control programs.
In such conditions, large-scale relocation of community dogs from institutional areas is neither humane nor practically feasible. Without first strengthening existing animal welfare systems, such measures risk increasing suffering and overburdening already stretched infrastructure, rather than resolving the issue in a compassionate and effective manner.
Nikhil Mahesh (left) and Juhi Bhattacharya (right), co-founders of Umeed for Animals Foundation
A. Funds and infrastructure. The biggest gap between court orders and actual municipal capacity lies in the assumption that local authorities have the infrastructure, manpower, funding, and systems required to manage India’s enormous stray dog population humanely.
While judicial directions may call for relocation, sheltering, sterilisation, or strict control measures, most municipalities struggle even with basic animal birth control and anti-rabies vaccination programmes, making full-scale implementation of more intensive measures difficult.
Q. Many animal activists say authorities cannot even manage waste properly. How can they realistically manage sterilisation, vaccination, feeding zones etc?
A. That’s true. Overflowing garbage is one of the main reasons stray dog populations grow around residential areas, markets, and dumping sites. If authorities cannot consistently control waste, it becomes difficult to address the root cause of street dog concentration. Many animal activists argue that expecting municipalities to simultaneously manage sterilisation, vaccination, feeding zones, and conflict prevention is unrealistic when even basic waste management remains poorly handled in many Indian cities.
Q. Should courts issue operational directives without first assessing local infrastructure and funding availability?
A. Courts play an important role in protecting public interest and ensuring accountability, but operational directives on issues like stray dog management should ideally consider the actual infrastructure, staffing, and funding available, and seek advice from animal welfare experts before imposing large-scale implementation requirements. Without assessing ground realities, such orders can become impractical and may create more suffering for both people and animals.
Q. If implementation fails, who should be held accountable?
A. If stray dog management policies fail, accountability cannot rest on a single group because responsibility is shared across multiple stakeholders. The court is also responsible here, as some directions may be unrealistic in practice.
Effective stray dog management requires shared responsibility, scientific planning, adequate funding, and cooperation between authorities, communities, and welfare groups, instead of blame-shifting after implementation collapses.
Read Comments
More Stories
Why Melbourne’s ‘Little India’ proposal triggered a racist backlash? US pressure, Imran Khan’s ouster and Pakistan’s nuclear secrets: What the leaked cypher reveals Why a doctors’ body says NTA is unfit to run NEET Here’s why the Bengali ‘bhadralok’ deserted Didi We Know ABC Works For Strays, But We Don’t Learn It Why Elon Lost The Fight With Sam