BHARCSAuthors: Sindhoor Pangal, Dr. Anindita Bhadra, Dr. Balaji Chandrashekar, Dr. Chinny Krishna, Dr. Asher Jesudoss, Sowjanya Vijayanagar, Annelieke Laninga · 18 November 2025
This literature review, prepared in the light of the Supreme Court order of November 2025, presents five arguments against the removal of free-living dogs in India, with recommendations.
1. Legal and regulatory non-compliance
Relocation conflicts with Indian law. The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 — binding under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — mandate that sterilised and vaccinated dogs be released back into the same locality where they were captured. Removing and transporting free-roaming dogs elsewhere without return constitutes illegal relocation, except for temporary medical treatment or declared emergencies. The WHO and the Indian government recognise sterilisation and vaccination as the only rational and scientific solution.
2. Ecological disruption and scientific ineffectiveness
Free-living dogs establish territories linked to resources. When removed, vacant territories create a population vacuum, allowing new, often unvaccinated dogs to migrate in — destabilising social structures and increasing stress and conflict. Dogs show strong site fidelity and attempt to return, exposing them to injury and traffic. Under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act (1919), dog killings increased alongside street-dog numbers and human rabies deaths.
3. Undermining public health and rabies control
Effective rabies control requires vaccinating 70% of the dog population to maintain herd immunity. Removing vaccinated dogs fragments coverage — a pattern seen in Thailand, South Africa, Chad, and Bali, where removal failed to prevent resurgence. Dogs also help control rat populations; their removal raises leptospirosis and plague risk, and rats cannot be vaccinated like dogs.
4. Severe ethical and welfare risks
Relocation removes dogs from established food, shelter, and social support, causing stress, trauma, starvation risk, and attacks from resident dogs. India's dog population makes mass sheltering impractical; large-scale confinement causes overcrowding, disease (distemper, parvovirus), and aggression.
5. Cultural and social considerations
Free-living dogs are part of an Indian heritage of empathy and coexistence, appearing in legends like Sarama and the Mahabharata's dog. Removal contradicts this ethos; the 1832 Mumbai riots followed British attempts to eradicate street dogs. Current orders deepen polarisation and cause harassment of feeders — often women. Human–dog attachment is mediated by oxytocin, so separation causes biologically real distress.
The existing ABC-ARV programme works
India's ABC-ARV approach — developed here, now WHO-recommended — has produced measurable results:
- Dog-bite incidence fell from 17 per 1,000 persons (2003) to 5.6 per 1,000 (2023).
- Human rabies cases fell 75%: from 20,565 (2003) to 5,276 (2023).
- In Chennai, human rabies deaths fell from 120 in 1996 to zero by 2007.
These declines followed the discontinuation of mass removal.
Conclusion
The evidence supports in-situ CNVR (Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release) as the humane, legal, and effective strategy. Programmes in Jaipur, Goa, the JNU campus, and South Delhi show that consistent CNVR at 70%+ coverage yields stable or declining populations and rabies control. This indigenous Indian programme should be strengthened, not disrupted.
The full literature review, an open letter signed by over 2,000 citizens and experts, and related press coverage are collected on the Removal of Free-Living Dogs resource page.