A coalition of multisectoral experts from leading global institutions has backed petitioners in the stray dog case currently before the Supreme Court, warning that proposals to remove and mass-shelter India’s free-living community dogs could be counterproductive. They argue such measures could undermine public health, violate existing law, destabilise urban ecosystems and impose heavy fiscal burdens without improving public safety.
The caution is informed by the experience of professionals in public health, behavioural science, veterinary medicine and law. Among the signatories are Chinny Krishna, pioneer of India’s Animal Birth Control programme; evolutionary biologist Lee Dugatkin of the University of Louisville; Anindita Bhadra of ISER Kolkata; public health expert Leena Menghaney; Pushpinder Singh Khera of AIIMS Jodhpur; and Julie Corfmat of Mission Rabies. Supporting organisations include the International Companion Animal Network (ICAN), Pet Dog Trainers of Europe (PDTE), the International Institute for Canine Ethics (IICE), and the Bangalore Hundeskole Academy for Research and Canine Studies (BHARCS).
Key findings from their analysis include:
- Free-living dogs form stable social groups when food availability, sterilisation and vaccination coverage remain consistent.
- Large-scale removal disrupts these structures, creating territorial vacuums quickly filled by other dogs—often unvaccinated and unsterilised—an effect linked to higher dog-bite incidents and increased disease risk.
- Mass removal weakens rabies control by breaking herd immunity. India’s Catch–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) model targets the globally recognised benchmark of vaccinating at least 70% of dogs in a locality.
- Evidence shows sharp declines in human rabies deaths and dog-bite cases in areas where sterilisation and vaccination programmes have been sustained. Abandoning this approach risks reversing gains made over the past two decades.
Experts also warn that mass sheltering could amplify risks. High-density animal housing is classified internationally as a biohazard activity, requiring strict quarantine, disease surveillance and worker-safety protocols. Anthrozoologist Sindhoor Pangal said the debate has drifted away from evidence: “Replacing proven, low-cost public health systems with a mass-detention model is not just unscientific—it actively increases risk while draining resources that should be strengthening vaccination and disease prevention.”
Position papers from the IICE note that large shelters often suffer from overcrowding, stress-related immunosuppression and rapid disease spread, particularly where regulatory oversight is weak.
The experts also highlight the ecological role of free-living dogs in urban environments. By scavenging waste, they help limit the growth of rodent populations, which cannot be vaccinated or monitored and are linked to diseases such as leptospirosis and plague. Sudden removal of dogs, they warn, could trigger rodent population surges and new public health challenges.
Legal experts add that mass relocation contradicts the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2023, which mandate sterilisation, vaccination and return of dogs to their original territories. Large-scale confinement, they argue, also raises constitutional and labour-safety concerns due to the occupational hazards associated with mass animal housing.
