'Top court’s directive asserts that lawful processes are not optional, but binding’

ON aug 22, 2025, the sublime margaret court of bharat issued an dictate of exceptional importance in the ongoing debate on community dogs, public health, and civic responsibility. In one stroke, it brought order to chaos, reaffirming the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, as the only lawful and scientific framework for dog population management across the country.The court’s ruling is layered in meaning. It recognises that humane science is not at odds with public health, but is its foundation. It affirms that those who care for animals cannot be harassed or criminalised. And it asserts that lawful processes are not optional but binding on every municipality. In doing so, the top court has shifted the national narrative from conflict and confusion to a framework of structured coexistence.Only 11 days earlier, municipal bodies, armed with a vague one-line order, had begun indiscriminate mass roundups of dogs. Their fate was uncertain; their carers were threatened. The new order records this grim reality, warning of the dangers when governance strays from established rules: it breeds confusion, cruelty, and conflict.The interim order, delivered by three judges after a week of nail-biting anxiety for lakhs of people, is scientific and, more importantly, classical — in the sense that it reaffirms earlier rulings by 40 courts and a previous Supreme Court bench. It aligns with policies framed 25 years ago by the government and the World Health Organization (WHO).It makes the following points:“Stray dogs will be released back to the same area after sterilisation and immunisation, except those infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behaviour.”This is in keeping with the policy that already exists. All dogs picked up for sterilisation must return to their original territories. Relocation causes biting. It has come to my notice that in the last two weeks, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) picked up 800 dogs and dumped them in the Yamuna floodplain. With no food there, the dogs will have made their way into the adjoining colonies which now have an influx of hungry, biting-prone dogs. The claim that these dogs were aggressive was false -- if they were aggressive, why release them at all? Stopping relocation is key. Sterilised dogs, lacking testosterone, are harmless if they feel safe.Territorial stability prevents chaos. Dogs are territorial; removing them invites unsterilised strays to migrate in, restarting cycles of mating, biting, and disease. Sterilised and vaccinated dogs, returned to their areas, form a natural barrier.Obviously, dogs with rabies cannot go back. The disease itself is fatal and the dog will be dead in a few days.Regarding aggression, there is a settled policy on what constitutes aggression: proof of biting without provocation. You cannot kick a dog without expecting him to defend himself. But many people do so. The policy is simple: Prove that the dog bit you without any form of aggression. To make sure that it is a bite, not a scratch or wound incurred when you fled from a dog, you need to show the doctor’s certificate as well.For years, “aggression” was loosely defined: “the dog looked at me aggressively,” “sat on my scooter,” “entered the stairs during rains,” “chased my car.” Now the criteria are specific. Obviously aggressive dogs can be picked up and examined for illnesses like tick fever, distemper, or parvo. If found non-aggressive, they must be released. In any case, municipalities currently lack isolation facilities for rabid or aggressive dogs — now these must be built.Another historic aspect of the order is its recognition of feeders. Municipalities must now provide designated feeding points in every ward. This is more than logistics. It is civilisational. Feeding animals has always been an integral part of Indian society. But until now, it was left to conflict: feeders harassed by neighbours, attacked by authorities, treated as nuisances. By formalising the role of feeders, the court has given legitimacy to compassion. It has turned an individual act of kindness into a recognised civic function.The judges have ordered that feeders should feed only in designated places. This is a positive recognition of the fact that every lane in India has someone feeding animals. Twenty years ago, government policy mandated feeding points, but 70% of municipalities and RWAs refused to create them. This forced feeders to be abused and accosted every day as they came to feed. Now anyone who does not make feeding points in their colony will be in contempt of court.For years, municipal corporations have failed in their duties of sterilisation and vaccination – taxpayer funds vanished without accountability, while suffering continued. As per the order, corporations must set up proper ABC centres. For the first time in 25 years, the government has announced in Parliament an allocation of ₹2,500 crore for the programme.By making this order pan-India, the court has tried to solve the problems created by not following the rules of the ABC Programme. Most districts lack ABC centres; there is no training for NGOs; no monitoring committees; or resources like vehicles and veterinary staff. Implementation will require thousands of crores more, along with training and infrastructure — much like the polio programme once did. Justice Vikram Nath has directed the municipal authority to file an affidavit detailing compliance with the ABC Rules, including comprehensive statistics on resources such as dog-catching personnel.The court used a phrase that deserves special attention: a holistic approach. This means that community dog management cannot rely on piecemeal fixes. It must be an integrated framework of sterilisation, vaccination, public awareness, infrastructure, and civic order.By stepping back from the previous order, the court has demonstrated judicial wisdom: compassion tempered with practicality.ABC Rules are not regional experiments; they are the law of the land. Every state, every Union territory, every district must comply.For too long, India has lived with patchy enforcement—some cities diligent, others indifferent, villages ignored. Now, the court has imposed uniformity. Humane governance cannot be a local charity; it is a national standard.