Stray Dogs in India: Why the Issue Is Creating a Growing Social Divide

Context

• Multiple villages across Telangana reported coordinated mass killings of stray dogs, bringing the issue into administrative, legal, and media focus.
• Activists and villagers alleged the use of poisoned darts and hired squads, suggesting planned and systematic extermination rather than spontaneous violence.
• Recent panchayat elections saw candidates campaign on promises to “resolve” the stray dog and monkey menace, linking public safety concerns with political mobilisation.

Scale of the problem

• Estimated fatalities: Animal welfare groups reported 1,500–1,600 stray dogs killed within a month across more than a dozen villages.
• Geographic spread: Cases reported from Kamareddy, Jagtial, Hanamkonda, Nagarkurnool, Ranga Reddy, and Nirmal districts, indicating statewide reach.
• Evidence circulation: Images and videos of carcasses surfaced on social media, amplifying public outrage and civil society mobilisation.
• Legal action: Filing of FIRs, NGO complaints, and petitions before authorities and courts demanding accountability and enforcement of animal welfare laws.
• Media attention: National and regional media coverage framed the issue as a public safety vs animal rights dilemma.

Public safety concerns

• Human health risk: Rising dog-bite cases, increasing demand for Anti-Rabies Vaccines (ARV) and Human Rabies Immunoglobulin (HRIG) in severe cases.
• Local health data:
  • 667 dog-bite cases since January 2025 across 19 villages in Yacharam mandal.
  • 109 cases from Yacharam alone, despite a population of ~5,000, reflecting high incidence density.
• State-level trend: Reported cases rose from 92,924 (2022) to 1,21,997 (2024) — nearly 30% increase.
• Livelihood impact: Attacks on livestock (goats, poultry) affecting small farmers’ income and food security.
• Social fear: Parents escorting children to schools; restricted mobility of elderly and women, impacting daily life and social cohesion.

Causes Identified

• Solid waste mismanagement: Open dumping, burning of garbage, and absence of segregation create feeding hotspots.
  • Lack of scientific landfills and door-to-door waste monitoring in rural areas.
• Food source availability: Poultry waste, slaughter remnants, and discarded household food sustain and concentrate stray populations.
• Health & population control gaps: Limited sterilisation coverage and anti-rabies vaccination in villages.
  • Absence of dog-catching squads and mobile veterinary units.
• Urbanisation pressures: Expansion of real estate and infrastructure projects in peri-urban belts displacing animal habitats.
  • Increased human–animal interface leading to conflict.
• Community behaviour:Irregular feeding by residents and feeders without responsibility for long-term care or population management.

Governance & Institutional Gaps

• Panchayat capacity constraints: Insufficient financial grants, trained staff, and equipment for humane stray management.
  • Lack of standard operating procedures (SOPs) at village level.
• Urban–rural policy divide: GHMC implements ABC-AR programmes with NGO partnerships and budgetary support.
  • Rural local bodies lack access to similar funding mechanisms and institutional backing.
• Legal ambiguity: Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 offers limited clarity on authority and methods for stray control.
  • Overlap and tension with AWBI rules and PCA Act, 1960.
• NGO limitations: Uneven geographic presence, focus on urban areas.
  • Lack of shelters, helplines, and field teams in rural mandals.
• Inter-departmental coordination: Weak linkages between Panchayats, Animal Husbandry, Health Department, Urban Bodies, and Police.
• Funding model gap: Absence of a dedicated rural stray management fund akin to municipal allocations in cities.

Legal & Policy Framework

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960

• Core objective: Prevents infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals while recognising the role of local authorities in animal control.
• Cruelty provisions: Criminalises acts such as poisoning, maiming, or torture of animals.
• Humane euthanasia: Permits destruction of stray or unwanted animals when authorised by law, provided it is done humanely and without unnecessary suffering.
• Institutional role: Empowers the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to advise governments on animal welfare policies and enforcement.
• Relevance: Often invoked by NGOs to challenge mass killings, while authorities cite it to justify legally sanctioned population control measures.

Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) Rules / Guidelines

• Preferred method: Mandates Animal Birth Control–Anti Rabies (ABC-AR) as the scientific and humane approach to manage stray dog populations.
• Public health linkage: Integrates rabies prevention with population control.
• Implementation gap: Effective in cities with municipal support; limited reach in rural panchayats due to lack of funds and infrastructure.

Telangana Panchayat Raj  Act, 2018

• Panchayat powers: Allows Gram Panchayats, in consultation with the District Collector, to issue notices on unlicensed or stray animals.
• Restraint provision: Permits panchayats to “restrain” stray dogs or pigs in cases of public health threats or disease outbreaks.
• Legal ambiguity:
  • No clear definition of “Animal Protection Committee”
  • Lacks standard operating procedures (SOPs) for humane capture, shelter, sterilisation, or euthanasia
• Result: Creates scope for ad hoc and extra-legal actions at the village level.

GHMC Act, 1955

• Urban authority: Empowers the Municipal Commissioner to destroy unclaimed or dangerous dogs under specified public safety conditions.
• Operational backing: Provides legal basis for ABC-AR programs and municipal dog-catching squads.
• Urban–rural divide: Stronger statutory powers and funding mechanisms in cities compared to weak legal clarity in panchayat jurisdictions.

Role of NGOs & Civil Society

• Urban interventions: NGOs like Blue Cross partner with GHMC to implement ABC-AR, including sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering, and post-operative care.
• Service delivery: Provide rescue, treatment, adoption drives, and public awareness campaigns in select urban zones.
• Rural gap: Limited geographical reach beyond city limits
  • Absence of 24×7 emergency helplines, mobile rescue units, and permanent shelters in most mandals
• Public perception: Growing resentment among affected villagers, who feel activists prioritise animal rights over human safety.
  • Social media debates and backlash against high-profile animal welfare advocates.
• Accountability issues: Variations in transparency, funding disclosure, and field presence among registered organisations.

Judiciary & Public Debate

• Supreme Court observations:
  • Held dog feeders accountable for ensuring public safety in areas where feeding occurs.
  • Emphasised a balance between animal welfare and citizens’ right to safe public spaces.
• Legal contestation: Courts increasingly asked to interpret PCA Act, AWBI Rules, and municipal laws in cases of stray management.
• Social divide:
  • Polarisation between “dog lovers” and daily victims of attacks.
  • Viral videos and media narratives intensifying emotional and moral arguments.
• Policy impact: Judicial remarks shaping municipal actions, relocation drives, and feeding guidelines.

Government Response

• Urban measures (GHMC): Relocation of strays from sensitive and institutional premises to shelters.
  • Expansion of ABC-AR coverage in select city zones.
• State-level stance: Telangana Minister urging humane and lawful methods.
  • Public condemnation of mass killings and cruelty.
• Administrative actions: District authorities conducting inquiries and police investigations into alleged exterminations.
  • Coordination with Health and Animal Husbandry Departments for vaccination and treatment.
• Limitations: Absence of a statewide rural stray management policy.
  • Resource and manpower constraints at panchayat level.

Way Forward

• Strengthen village waste management: Enforce door-to-door collection, segregation, composting, and scientific disposal to eliminate open feeding grounds.
• Legal clarity for panchayats: Issue model rules/SOPs defining humane capture, sheltering, sterilisation, and euthanasia procedures.
• Community participation: Promote adoption drives, responsible feeding guidelines, and awareness campaigns on rabies prevention.
• Institutional coordination: Establish district-level task forces linking Panchayats, Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), NGOs, Health, Police, and Animal Husbandry Departments.
• Dedicated funding: Introduce a Rural Stray Animal Management Grant under state or centrally sponsored schemes.
• Data-driven governance: Maintain village-wise dog population and bite incident databases to guide targeted interventions.

Sharing is caring!