The ABC programme is the only humane way to solve the stray dog crisis. The SC directive seems impractical; local bodies need to carry out aggressive ABC drives
The bond between man and dog had its beginning 12-14 millennia ago somewhere in Eurasia where a reciprocal relationship between them first emerged.
Provided with scraps of food when approaching the early encampments and settlements of man, the wolf soon became a frequent and welcome visitor, warning man of imminent danger and later assisting him in the hunt for wild animals. Thus began the domestication of the dog and the establishment of a bond between man and animals that has no equal.
Today, man violates that bond by allowing dogs to breed excessively and then abandoning them in great numbers, thus creating hazards for the dogs themselves as well as a considerable health risk to human society. All too often, authorities confronted with the problems caused by these dogs have turned to crass solutions such as mass destruction in the hope of finding a quick solution, only to discover that the destruction had to continue, year after year, with no end in sight.
Moreover, by temporarily reducing the population of stray dogs, the authorities had improved the chances of survival for the remaining dogs and provided fresh opportunities for those newly abandoned. It is now recognised that removal of surplus dogs cannot solve the problem unless combined with other measures such as registration and neutering of dogs and education of the public.
Introducing ABC
The Blue Cross of India in Chennai was the first to start sterilisation programmes for street dogs – indeed it was the first to propose such a programme and set up its first free clinic in 1966. Thirty years later, in 1996, they were able to convince the Chennai Corporation, headed by M Abul Hassan, IAS, regarding the viability of this Animal Birth Control programme. The Blue Cross of India took up the total funding and was soon joined by People for Animals, led by Maneka Gandhi.
The corporation’s only expense was to continue providing the dog-catching staff and vehicles.
Also read: Chief Justice says 'will look into' SC order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR
The number of cases of rabies, which had been rising every year and had reached a high of 120 reported cases in 1996, began a steady decline and by 2007, it had dropped to zero. After three successive years of zero rabies, Chennai was declared rabies-free in 2010 – the first city in India to achieve this. Jaipur had also reached zero even earlier.
Seeing the success of ABC-AR in Chennai and Rajasthan, the government of India’s Animal Welfare Board adopted ABC-AR as its policy and recommended the government to adopt it. Thanks to Mrs Gandhi, things moved swiftly and Parliament approved the ABC Rules in 2001, which stopped the barbaric poisoning or electrocution of street dogs and made ABC mandatory for all local bodies.
With increased awareness and vaccination drives, rabies cases dropped by over 95 per cent from WHO’s 29,000 in 1996 to about 600 in 2024. The Centre, in a statement issued in July 2025, reported 54 rabies deaths in 2024.
No concerted effort
Sadly, today, most municipalities in the country do not implement ABC aggressively to reach the 70 per cent target, which could have stabilised the population. Municipalities are responsible for stray dog management under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Sporadic ABC camps will not suffice. This is the only humane way to handle the problem. In fact, the ABC programme which I introduced in other countries like Jordan and Egypt, is so popular, that even WHO, FAO, the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) no longer calls it CNR (Catch neuter and return) or TNVR (trap, neuter, vaccine and return) and use the term ABC.
Places like the Netherlands have achieved zero stray status without killing a single dog through mass sterilization, microchipping, strict breeding laws, and heavy fines for abandonment.
Work of welfare groups
Many animal welfare groups then supported street dog feeders only to get them to befriend the dogs so that they could be easily caught and sterilised and vaccinated. Many feeders, unfortunately, stopped with the feeding part and just began to dump newborn puppies at animal shelters.
Also read: Why PETA, animal activists are protesting SC order to 'cage' stray dogs
Armchair critics and keyboard warriors, in the meantime, instead of helping those groups struggling with overloaded shelters and large numbers of sterilisations, just kept using the double-edged sword of social media to find fault with what municipalities and local organisations were doing. They ended up painting a grim picture of stray dogs spreading stark fear and misinformation.
The onset of the pandemic stopped most ABC programmes for well over a year undoing years of work virtually bringing everything back to square one.
Impossible to implement
Having said all this, the recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is totally impossible to implement. Putting captured street dogs into massive pounds will lead to massive and unbelievable cruelty. Such an experiment was tried out by a group called EAST in Taipei about 25 years ago. Virtually, every dog of the thousand put in the pound died due to infighting and unequal feeding – a clear case of the survival only of the fittest till infections killed these too.
Fortunately, a Buddhist monk who took over the organisation convinced the government to stop this inhuman practice and adopt an ABC programme.
Bypassing earlier judgement
Notably, the Supreme Court order also goes against the 2023 ABC Rules and the orders of another two-judge bench.
In May last year, in an order closing multiple stray dog-related cases, a division bench of the SC comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol held that it is best for high courts or “other forums” to adjudicate independently on any local issues that may come up. Its only directive was that all decisions taken must be in accordance with the “the new Rules (ABC rules from 2023) putting in place mechanism for preventing the infliction of unnecessary pains and sufferings on animals, more specifically the canines”.
The court stressed that decisions regarding stray dogs must align with these rules, which aim to prevent cruelty to animals and establish procedures for their management. In that order, they also quoted Justice Midha who had said, “Animals are sentient creatures with an intrinsic value. Therefore, protection of such beings is the moral responsibility of each and every citizen…,”. He emphasised that since they are territorial animals, dogs must be tended to and fed within their territories.
Also read: Treating stray dogs as nuisance is 'cruelty', not governance: Karnataka CM
The SC directive on August 11 was also issued without giving other stakeholders a chance to be heard. It is shocking that when told that the 2023 ABC rules mandated the release of sterilised dogs, the apex court asked those present in the court to “forget the rules for the time being”. These rules focus on the neutering and anti-rabies vaccination of stray dogs as means of population stabilisation.
Where is space, funds?
No municipality has the space or the funds required to run such pounds, euphemistically referred to as shelters without making the Black Hole of Calcutta look like a shining beacon. Also, they will need acres of land to build these pounds and where will the government find this land with no humans nearby?
That ABC-AR, which is the only way to control stray population, works is not in doubt. Indeed, in Radford University’s Milestones in World Environmental History, the ABC programme of the Blue Cross of India is listed as one of the milestones, right after Jane Goodall, in 1959!
Let us all hope that better sense prevails and the SC order is withdrawn or suitably modified to ensure all local bodies fulfill their mandate of properly carrying out aggressive ABC programmes.
Also read another article: Our streets are meant for walking, not for dogs
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
