The Indian animal welfare community is now having sleepless nights. It all started with The Supreme Court of India taking cognisance on the basis of a Times of India report of July 28th 2025 “ Delhi hounded by strays, kids pay price “ initiating a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025.
The case led to multiple hearings and directives.
Legal Framework & Core Conflict:
The case revolves around balancing public safety (stray dog bites/rabies) with compassion for animals, guided by the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and constitutional mandates like Article 51A(g).
What has come to light is something we have already known : that the failure of the ABC programme is rarely due to the absence of laws, but rather the inability or reluctance to implement them systematically, combined with severe underfunding and lack of accountability among the agencies involved.
While NGO involvement in ABC is on field and is mostly genuine, legal backing is only on paper. Financial commitment on part of the administrative authorities is minimal, their priorities mostly lie in other projects, leading to budgetary constraints. Vendor organisations are never paid on time, thus leading to programme abandonment. This in turn leads to compromised welfare and targets that are never reached. This financial stumbling block is despite the Higher Courts directives to administrative authorities to pay vendors on time. In some areas, central funding for ABC programs has been minimal or non-existent in recent years.
Another very scientific aspect that is mostly overlooked during discussing reasons of failure of ABC programs, is the simultaneous running of programs in multiple neighbouring corporations, councils or gram panchayats. Due to migratory nature of canines, it is impossible to keep the numbers of sterilised animals constant in any area unless the numbers in the neighboring areas are controlled.
Animal Birth Control is a solution that can be achieved only when the programme is conducted scientifically and honestly. Sadly, in India, neither are existent.
To elaborate : 1stly, zones need to be carved out in an administrative area before starting sterilisation. This has to be on a need basis. Meaning, the zones need to be calibrated according to footfall density, important areas like schools, court houses, market areas etc, or areas from where complaints of aggression or bites. ABC needs to be strictly carried out as per zones. Once one area is cleared, we move on to the next area. If the programme is done haphazardly, there will never be a visible result. There is also the concern of relocation disruptions. Despite being pointed out since years, people fail to realise that relocation is never the answer to the problem. In recent times, there have been a spike in complaints about relocation by local bodies themselves. It is surprising that such activities happen under Grade 1 officers who are aware of the legalities.
2ndly, tendering system to choose vendors need to be revisited. Health cannot depend on lowest tender. Quality will be severely compromised. In fact awarding tenders for this service, should be stopped. Companies or organisations who qualify for best practices ( laid down by competent authorities ) should be employed.
3rdly, the AWBI has seriously defaulted in granting recognitions which more or less puts a leash on the working of the programme in terms of accountability.
4thly, while this cannot be proved, we all know how political pressure tactics work in this field. Pressurising vendors to relocate, trade organs from one centre to the other, cut money demanded, impacts the programme as a whole. Topping the list is pressure from local politicians to either clean up their areas on priority basis, or engaging the space in pounds to cage “complaint” dogs, which bark or bite. This impacts the target numbers and eventually the program.
Animal welfare organizations strongly support sterilization but often find themselves accused of blocking public safety measures. This long format story examines the gap between advocacy, ground reality, and public perception.
While discussing this topic, we cannot ignore the human component. The success of ABC- AR programme lies in the reduction of deaths from rabies, both in humans and dogs. However, even now, our govt hospitals do not stock vaccines or immunoglobulins. Affected citizens have to buy vaccines from private pharmacists. Animal lovers and feeders spend out of their own pockets to buy vaccines and keep their community safe. Very rarely have we witnessed local bodies carry out this duty.
When there is pressure to meet targets, welfare is compromised again, as releases are based not on fitness but by the books. Eventually the animal suffers on the road, the vendor is blamed and clashes ensue.
Pressure from local bodies also leads to patchy coverage. Ignoring the zonewise CNVR, which is the most effective way to do the programme, vendors often fail to sterilize a high enough percentage of the population (often covering less than 20-30% of dogs), which is insufficient to curb breeding, as the remaining population reproduces quickly.
Due to shortage and red tape delays in funding, infrastructures are substandard, sanitation and hygiene is always compromised. Vendor organisations are forced to compromise on the quality of technical expertise, like experienced physicians and surgeons necessary for the success of the programme. To make up for lack of funds, many vendor organisations prioritize fundraising or social media visibility over actual field work, failing to deliver results. Due to poor enforcement of legal fame work, there is a frequent lack of monitoring and transparency, with CCTV, proper record-keeping, and daily reporting systems often not in place, allowing unethical, practices.
I would like to add some socio cultural factors for the failure of the ABC Programme. In some communities, feeding habits and local sentiments may make it difficult to catch stray dogs, and there may be resistance to sterilization drives.
General public apathy and lack of awareness regarding the necessity of the ABC program reduce community cooperation which is a must for the success of the Programme.
If you look at Help in Suffering in Jaipur, or even at Goa, ABC has been extremely successful in the former and a Rabies free city in the latter. The ABC in Lucknow has been widely cited as a significant and successful administrative model, achieving national recognition. The stray dog birth rate nearly halved, dropping from eight newborns per 100 dogs in 2019 to under four in 2025. Approximately 84% of the city’s stray dogs have been sterilized and vaccinated.
The vaccination coverage surpassed the World Health Organisation’s 70 per cent benchmark necessary for effective rabies control, and dog-related complaints (such as bites and attacks) have notably decreased.
Due to its effectiveness, the “Lucknow model” has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court of India and is being replicated across other municipal corporations in Uttar Pradesh.
On the contrary, Kalyan Dombivili, Bhiwandi, Ulhasnagar, all have been failures as far as ABC is concerned. The main reasons for this can be attributed to apathy towards the cause, vendor’s attitude to turn this into a business venture and most importantly No Garbage Control
All these points have been presented to the bench of Hon’ble Justices, and the bench has very kindly heard each intervention application from both sides. We now wait with bated breath to receive the reserved order from the bench, praying that good and fair sense will prevail.
