PETA India Slams Supreme Court’s Order to Remove All Stray Dogs from Delhi-NCR Streets

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India has criticised the Supreme Court’s directive to move all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region to shelters within eight weeks, calling it “impractical, illogical, and illegal.”

On Monday, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered civic authorities to round up every stray dog — sterilised or not — from all areas, including city outskirts, and relocate them to designated shelters. The court made it clear that no captured animal would be released back onto the streets. The move follows a rise in stray dog attack cases in the region.

‘Housing 10 lakh dogs impossible’
PETA India warned that forcibly removing the city’s community dogs would cause “chaos and suffering” without solving the root problems. Dr Mini Aravindan, the group’s senior veterinary affairs director, argued that sterilisation and vaccination — not mass removal — are the proven solutions to control population, rabies, and bite incidents.

Shaurya Agrawal, PETA India’s advocacy associate, pointed out that Delhi has an estimated 10 lakh stray dogs and housing them all is unfeasible, adding that such confinement would be “inhumane” and “cruel.” He noted that poor shelter conditions would worsen animal welfare and urged the government to strengthen Animal Birth Control (ABC) programmes instead.

Broader backlash from activists
Animal rights advocate and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi called the order “impractical” and “financially unviable,” estimating the cost of creating adequate facilities for Delhi’s stray population at around ₹15,000 crore. Humane World for Animals India MD Alokparna Sengupta described the ruling as “misguided” and “counterproductive,” warning that relocation simply moves the problem elsewhere.

Despite the criticism, the Supreme Court dismissed all intervention pleas, citing “urgent safety concerns” for children, senior citizens, and the public, and stressed that the decision was based on the prevailing “grim situation,” not public sentiment.