Authored By: Khushi Tandon
Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College, Pune
The laws of India have significantly advanced with time but as we say laws are of no use if it remains a hollow illusion or in other words “without proper enforcement” exposing a systemic failure within our administrative machinery. Perhaps the proof of this systemic failure is the stray dog crisis. The municipalities failed to execute their duties resulting in 3.7 million dog bites.[1] Recently the Supreme Court of India has dealt with the cases which were related to the rise in dog bites highlighting hundreds of thousands of cases in individual states alone. This crisis has given rise to a conflict between animal welfare and human public safety rights making it a constitutional conflict.
Although article 51A(g)[2]The Indian constitution gives power to the people of India to show compassion for living creatures however it somehow also violates the fundamental right to life, dignity and safety guaranteed to citizens under Article 21of the Indian Constitution.The core of this legal article rests on balancing the article 51A(g) and article 21 of the Indian constitution, while simultaneously looking into the responsibilities and statutory accountability of municipal authorities in India.
This article argues the constitutional conflict between article 21 and 51A(g) should be resolved by making municipal authorities strictly accountable. This issue can be solved by providing structured and humane sheltering to street animals; hence, this is the only way to protect both animals and the public.
Legal framework-
The Constitution of India- The constitution of India contains many articles which help to protect the street animals such as Article 51 A(g) which creates a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures. Article 48 also plays an important role as it directly asks the state to protect and improve the environment and wildlife. Although Article 48 focuses more on agriculture and comes under directive principles of state policy, the Supreme Court has often read article 48 and 51A(g) together.[3]
The powers are divided between central and state governments which are given in the seventh schedule of the Indian constitution. In state list(list II), entry 15 talks about the preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal disease. This is where state governments and municipalities are needed to prevent animal diseases and to run vaccination and sterilisation camps.
The prevention of Cruelty to animals (PCA) Act, 1960-
This is the main Act which plays an important role in saving the lives of street animals. The main goal of this act is to prevent the cause of any pain or suffering on animals which is applicable to the whole India now including the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This Act contains special definition such as “animals”, “domestic animals”, “board”, “street”, “local authority”[4] in order to make the law more clear and understandable . To achieve the goal of unnecessary suffering, Section 3[5] and section 11(1)[6] comes into play. According to section 3 of this act it is the duty of the person to take all reasonable measures in order to ensure the animal’s well being and to prevent any pain or suffering of such an animal. Moreover according to section 11of the act several acts are criminalized as cruelty. The municipal cooperation indirectly violates section 11(1)(i) whenever they sterilise the street dogs and abandons them into dangerous or resource scarce urban environment furthermore forcing them to starve continuously for days and untreated diseases on the road also violates section 11(K) or when they are left out in the open street, they may get hit by cars or other vehicles, causing them unnecessary pain violating section 11(1)(a).
The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 –
The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023[7] was drafted under the PCA Act. This has been replaced by 2001 regulations giving full responsibilities to the municipalities such assterilizing stray dogs, managing their populations, and setting up designated feeding spots to prevent public conflicts. This rule also mandates Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (CNVR) policy and bans the use of cruel capture in India such as the use of tongs and wires. While these rules were made with the noble intentions of preventing cruel killings by the civic bodies, they have ultimately failed in their practical application. The ABC rules framed in 2023 believes that city streets are natural habitat of the stays and are safe for them but putting them back on the city streets are more harmful for both animals and the people hence the authorities should not neglect the needs of animals and should provide proper shelter to them.
CASE LAWS-
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja[8]
Facts: This case concerns the traditional sports of Jallikattu (bull-taming) in Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra. Animal welfare organisations argued that forcing bulls to participate in these events subjected them to immense physical and mental torture which directly violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
Decision: Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races banned by the Supreme Court.
The Court delivered a landmark judgement that animals too have a right to live with dignity and security under article 21 of the Constitution. The Court opined that the primary duty of compassion (Article 51A(g)) should be strictly implemented along with the PCA act to save all animals from unwarranted pain and suffering.
2. Animal Welfare Board of India v People for Elimination of Stray Troubles[9]
Facts: Due to a massive increase in dog bites and rabies cases, various local municipalities and state governments in Kerala and Maharashtra passed the orders of mass killing of street dogs. Animal rights groups and the AWBI filed petitions against these mass killings, arguing that they violated the PCA Act and the national Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
Decision: The Supreme Court stopped the mass, arbitrary killing of street dogs. The Court ruled that municipalities must strictly implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and establish proper infrastructure for sterilization and vaccination. Most importantly, the Court decided that a constitutional balance must be maintained between human safety which is right to life and animal welfare, allowing the humane euthanasia of only rabid or terminally ill dogs as strictly prescribed by the law, not healthy street dogs.
3. Dr. Maya D. Chablani v. Radha Mittal (2021).[10]
Facts: A dispute emerged amongst the residents in a housing society about the feeding of the community dogs by some citizens and their opposition to feeding those dogs on the grounds that the dogs were dangerous to the public.
Decision: The Delhi High Court held that street dogs have a right to food and that citizens have a legitimate right to provide food to these street dogs. Nevertheless, in order to strike a balance between public safety and the rights of the animals, the Court ordered the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and municipalities to establish designated locations for the purpose. The most important thing is that the Court reminded municipalities of their legal obligation to construct animal pounds and animal shelters.
Critical Analysis and Conclusion: The Way Forward for Animal Welfare
In India, there is a massive gap between what the law promises and what actually happens in real life, especially when it comes to the management of animals. The biggest issue lies in the ABC Rules, 2023 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960( PCA Act), 1960. The ABC rules give responsibility to municipal workers to sterilise them and release them at their original place; however, dumping them especially in resource scarce streets, puts the lives of both humans and animals in danger. In such cases animals are either abused or are hungry, which may increase the risk of human animal conflict Furthermore we are completely overlooking section 3 of PCA Act which strictly demands that we should prevent pain and suffering of animals.The entire system assumes that busy highways and concrete pavements are natural habitats for the strays because of such failure the rulings of SC like extending the right to life under Article 21 and the duty of compassion ends up being empty promises on the paper
The only solution is fixing the crises by replacing the outdated PCA Act and making amendments with strict non bailable punishments.
Secondly it is the duty of the government to mandate every municipality to establish,fund and maintain permanent animal sanctuaries.Instead of a catch neuter and return policy we should move on to the rescue and shelter approach.
Only then can we become the voice of the voiceless and demand real change. Until we provide these animals with designated, safe spaces, our welfare laws will remain dead letters and will continue to fail.
Bibliography
- Table of Legal Cases-
Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
Animal Welfare Board of India v People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2016) 2 SCC 598
Dr Maya D Chablani v Radha Mittal 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3599
- Table of Legislation
Animal Birth Control Rules 2023
Constitution of India
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960
- Secondary Sources
‘Supreme Court allows euthanasia of rabid, ill, and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs [19.05.2026]’ (Legal Eagle Elite, 20 May 2026) https://legaleagleweb.com/newsdetailhi.aspx?newsid=9513 accessed 7 July 2026
’What are the ABC Rules for stray dog management?’ (BlepWorld, 2024)
https://blepworld.com/blogs/guide/what-are-the-abc-rules-for-stray-dog-management accessed 8 July 2026
’Whose Streets Are They? Supreme Court’s Suo Motu And The Question Of Urban Safety’ (LiveLaw, 4 February 2026) https://www.livelaw.in accessed 8 July 2026
[1] Supreme Court allows euthanasia of rabid, ill, and demonstrably dangerous stray dogs [19.05.2026]’ (Legal Eagle Elite, 20 May 2026) <https://legaleagleweb.com/newsdetailhi.aspx?newsid=9513> accessed 7 July 2026.
[2] Constitution of India, art 51A(g).
[3] Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[4] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, s 2.
[5] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, s 3.
[6] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, s 11(1).
[7] Animal Birth Control Rules 2023.
[8] Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[9] Animal Welfare Board of India v People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (2016) 2 SCC 598.
[10] Dr Maya D Chablani v Radha Mittal 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3599.
