Thousands gathered at India Gate shouting “Stop This Tanashahi!” after the Supreme Court directed the removal of stray dogs from public spaces like schools and hospitals, sparking outrage among animal rights activists demanding humane and balanced solutions for community safety.
A significant protest erupted at India Gate in Delhi in response to the Supreme Court’s recent directive mandating the removal of stray dogs from sensitive public spaces such as schools, hospitals, bus stands, and railway stations throughout India.
Participants in the protest, which included distraught parents and dedicated animal rights activists, voiced strong opposition to the ruling, chanting slogans like “Hamare bacho ka haq unhe waapis karo!!! Apni tanashahi band kar bh@dwa j@nata p@rty!!!”
Demonstrators criticized what they described as an unscientific and harsh policy, urging authorities to consider humane alternatives and denouncing the government’s perceived authoritarian measures.
In an effort to maintain order around this national landmark, police detained several protesters, highlighting the escalating tensions and divisions that these directives have caused.
The Supreme Court took notice of a troubling increase in dog-bite incidents, with over 1.7 million cases reported across the nation in 2024 alone.
The court’s three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, noted that children, hospital patients, and economically disadvantaged individuals are particularly vulnerable to stray dog attacks, framing the issue as a matter of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In response, the Supreme Court instructed state governments and municipal authorities to prevent stray dogs from entering sensitive public areas by implementing fencing around educational, health, and institutional premises and physically removing the animals.
The dogs are to be sterilized and vaccinated according to the updated Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023, and then relocated to secure shelters without being returned to the community to avoid a cycle of aggressive animal repopulation.
The legal directive is stringent: it requires comprehensive compliance within a few weeks, with state Chief Secretaries held personally accountable for any failures. It also mandates regular inspections of institutional premises to ensure that stray dogs remain absent.
Also Read: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
The court warned that anyone obstructing official dog-catching operations could face contempt proceedings or harsher penalties, signaling a zero-tolerance approach to enforcement.
Despite the court’s insistence on prioritizing public health, the order has ignited substantial public backlash, particularly evident in the large protest held at India Gate on November 9, 2025.
Protesters included parents concerned about their children’s safety around stray dogs, while animal welfare advocates and local residents expressed strong opposition to mass removal and relocation strategies. Many argued that the approach was unscientific, inhumane, and likely to create new problems rather than resolve existing ones.
Critics contended that simply removing dogs without ensuring their humane sterilization, welfare, and community reintegration would upset ecological balance, potentially leading to an influx of new, possibly more aggressive dogs filling territorial voids.
They called for evidence-based, compassionate interventions that prioritize scientific methods such as Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR), which had received partial endorsement in earlier court rulings.
Protesters’ slogans expressed anger not only at the order but also at the government’s perceived indifference, characterizing the enforcing party as a “tanashahi” (dictatorship) against public sentiment.
Parents also connected the rise in dog bite incidents to broader issues such as increasing pollution and inadequate urban infrastructure, suggesting that stray dog challenges are symptoms of systemic neglect rather than root causes.
The police detained several protesters, citing security concerns near a sensitive national monument during a time close to Independence Day celebrations, further heightening tensions.
The Supreme Court has maintained that public safety, especially for children and vulnerable citizens, must take priority. It directed the establishment of new shelters capable of housing thousands of dogs, staffed with veterinary professionals committed to ongoing sterilization and vaccination efforts.
The court mandated the fencing of institutional properties and the appointment of nodal officers at each facility to ensure effective coordination with municipal bodies.
While officials have expressed readiness to implement the orders, many acknowledge challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, a lack of trained staff for humane capture, and ethical concerns raised by animal rights organizations.
The court appointed Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal, who submitted reports highlighting compliance gaps and urged prompt remedial measures.
Some states have submitted affidavits detailing progress, while others are lagging, risking legal consequences for inaction or negligence.
The Supreme Court emphasized that these are public health orders, not merely animal control measures, and stressed that any serious failure to comply would be met with strict judicial remedies.
The ongoing discourse also involves complex legal and ethical considerations. Previous rulings allowed captured stray dogs to be sterilized and vaccinated before being returned to their original habitats, a model supported by scientific evidence indicating balanced ecological outcomes.
The Supreme Court’s recent hardline shift to no-release policies signals a departure driven by escalating public safety concerns.
Animal rights groups contend that forced relocations risk causing undue stress, suffering, and mortality among dogs without addressing the underlying issues such as urban planning inadequacies and community awareness.
Conversely, proponents of stricter measures emphasize the urgent need to prevent fatal dog bites, noting that thousands of people in India die each year from rabies transmitted by free-ranging dogs.
This judicial balancing act reflects a broader governance dilemma: how to protect human health and safety equitably without compromising animal welfare and community harmony.
Municipalities face operational hurdles in creating sufficient shelters and managing stray populations sustainably. Additionally, social acceptance varies widely, complicating law enforcement and public messaging.
The Logical Indian asserts that public safety is non-negotiable, but that protection must be rooted in empathy, science, and respect for all beings sharing our urban environments. Children deserve safe spaces free from danger, but achieving this must avoid cruelty or authoritarianism.
Harmonious coexistence requires policies developed through inclusive dialogue that involves community members, animal welfare experts, legal authorities, and healthcare professionals.
If strict measures are necessary, they should be implemented with maximum transparency and sensitivity, supported by investments in infrastructure and education to prevent conflicts.
This situation prompts a reflection on broader urban governance challenges how cities can accommodate and manage the complex needs of both human and animal inhabitants.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs