E-Paper
Community dogs and shelters: A reality check
This article is authored by Pooja Singh, public health consultant, New Delhi.
The latest hearing on community dogs highlighted ground realities. The amicus informed the court that Maharashtra has categorically stated it does not have the sheltering capacity envisaged by earlier directions—and, therefore, cannot comply. Several other states echoed the same position. This was an admission of reality.
For nearly 25 years, India’s official national policy on street dogs has been ABC—Animal Birth Control: Sterilise, vaccinate, and release. This policy is endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the only way to curb numbers, reduce bites and eliminate rabies. ABC units are not shelters. They are small, operation-focused facilities where dogs are kept only for post-operative recovery and released within a week.
There is not a single municipal shelter in India that functions as a lifelong housing facility for community dogs. Expecting states or municipalities to suddenly pick up and shelter millions of dogs totally unrealistic.
One of the most striking moments of the hearing came from a bite victim herself, who demonstrated how hospital bite data is poorly recorded. She showed how minor scratches, provoked incidents, or even non-dog injuries are often logged as “dog bites.”
She contrasted this with Singapore, where every bite incident is methodically investigated—examining cause, provocation, environment, and the dog’s vaccination status—before policy conclusions are drawn.
Bad data leads to bad policy. And in public health, bad policy costs lives.
Counsels on all sides made one thing clear: This is not a dog-versus-human issue. Everyone acknowledged that public health and safety are paramount. The disagreement lies only in method, not intent.
Sheltering as a mass solution was challenged on multiple grounds:
Non-existence of shelters: You cannot scale what does not exist. India has neither land nor infrastructure to shelter millions of dogs.
Prohibitive and recurring costs: Today, community dogs are fed voluntarily—at no cost to the state. Sheltering shifts this entire burden to municipalities. The cost would run into hundreds of crores annually, not as a one-time expense but forever.
Public health risk of overcrowded shelters: Poorly managed shelters become breeding grounds for disease, infection, and aggression. Globally, overcrowding has been shown to increase—not reduce—health risks.
The vacuum effect: Removing dogs does not leave areas empty. Vacated territories are quickly occupied by unsterilised dogs, or worse—rats, cats, monkeys, and other species.
Sterilised and vaccinated community dogs form bio-barriers. They prevent new, unvaccinated dogs from entering territories and act as a rabies buffer.
Wherever ABC has been properly implemented, rabies has been eliminated. The failure lies not in the programme, but in its execution.
Crucially, the Centre has not funded ABC programmes for nearly five years, pushing the responsibility onto municipalities that are often untrained, under-resourced, and unaccountable. An uncomfortable truth also emerged: That dog feeders—especially women—are bearing the brunt of hostile and confusing orders. Many are being harassed, threatened, and even physically assaulted for performing what is essentially a civic function.
If the State benefits from free feeding that stabilises dog populations, it cannot abandon those doing this work. Feeders require clear legal protection.
The court was also urged to examine the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). The SOP goes beyond existing court orders and introduces norms that are neither scientific nor humane.
One such guideline effectively allocates 20 square feet for a dog for its entire lifetime. This has no basis in veterinary science, animal behaviour, or global best practices.
The solution is neither denial nor panic. It lies in properly funded, transparently monitored ABC programmes, implemented in partnership with experienced animal welfare organisations.
India does not need to reinvent policy. It needs to implement the one it already chose—honestly, consistently, and scientifically.
The court heard the truth. What matters now is whether the system is ready to act on it.
This article is authored by Pooja Singh, public health consultant, New Delhi.
