The Supreme Court’s recent approach to the stray dog issue has swung between strict removal, ABC-rule compliance, and now a safety-first framework that partly revives the original hard line. All three orders dated August 11, August 22 and November 7 reveal SC’s attempt to balance two competing duties: Respecting the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023—which require dogs to be sterilised, vaccinated and returned to their territories—and protecting citizens from injuries and rabies risks in crowded public spaces.

The August 11 order, reacting to a media report, directed Delhi-NCR authorities to relocate all strays to shelters without returning them. This sweeping mandate was quickly reconsidered.

On August 22, a three-judge Bench held that such a blanket non-release rule was “too harsh,” reinstating the ABC framework while adding structured feeding zones and helplines to regulate both human and animal behaviour.

However, the November 7 order marks a shift. It excludes “institutional areas” such as schools, colleges, hospitals, sports arenas and major transport hubs from the return-to-territory rule. Dogs found within these campuses must be sterilised and vaccinated, but then moved permanently to shelters. The Court reinforced this with strict compliance measures—fencing of campuses, nodal officers, mandatory anti-rabies stocks, statewide affidavits and AWBI-issued SOPs.

This carve-out has raised concerns. Activists fear that once non-return zones are allowed for campuses and transport hubs, municipalities may informally expand them to avoid complaints, hollowing out the ABC regime.

Equally troubling is the feasibility: many states lack shelter capacity, trained staff, veterinary support or biosecurity systems. Kerala, with only 19 ABC centres for five lakh dogs, illustrates this gap starkly.

Ultimately, the Court’s safety objective is valid, but rushed implementation may produce overcrowded shelters, disease spread or covert culling. For the November order to function humanely and effectively, governments must invest in waste control, campus security and animal-handling infrastructure, while the AWBI must issue detailed, enforceable protocols. Sustainable outcomes require systems—not constant judicial supervision.