Removing stray dogs from public spaces across India could cost the government up to Rs 26,800 crore, the Supreme Court was told on Tuesday, prompting renewed debate over humane, sustainable solutions to manage urban animal populations.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was informed that physically removing stray dogs from public spaces nationwide would impose a massive financial burden on the government, amounting to nearly Rs 26,800 crore.

The disclosure was made during a hearing on stray dog management, an issue that has increasingly drawn public attention amid concerns over dog bites and rabies cases.

Senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing on behalf of noted animal welfare expert Gauri Mulekhi, placed the estimates before the bench, stating that the figures were calculated using existing government data.

Mulekhi, who has worked closely with four states including Uttar Pradesh on animal welfare and population control, is considered a leading authority on the subject.

Venugopal urged the apex court to reconsider its November 7 order, arguing that large-scale removal of dogs from streets is neither financially viable nor scientifically effective.

Instead, he pointed to evidence-based alternatives that have shown measurable success in reducing stray dog populations without resorting to relocation.

Breaking Down the Rs 26,800 Crore Estimate

Explaining the calculations, the senior lawyer told the court that the cost estimate includes expenses related to capturing dogs, constructing and maintaining shelters, feeding, healthcare, staffing, and long-term upkeep.

According to the submission, relocating millions of dogs would require vast infrastructure across states and urban local bodies, stretching public resources already under pressure.

The court was informed that such expenditure would not guarantee a lasting solution, as removed dogs are often replaced by unsterilised animals migrating into newly vacated areas. This phenomenon, known as the “vacuum effect,” has been documented in multiple studies and acknowledged in previous court rulings.

Venugopal stressed that indiscriminate removal could also exacerbate public health risks, as unvaccinated dogs may enter cities, potentially increasing rabies transmission rather than curbing it.

The ‘Lucknow Model’: A Case for Humane Population Control

Central to the arguments placed before the court was the “Lucknow Model”, which Venugopal described as a successful example of humane stray dog management.

Under this model, authorities focused on Animal Birth Control (ABC) programmes, mass sterilisation, vaccination against rabies, and consistent monitoring, rather than removal or confinement.

According to the submissions, Lucknow witnessed a sustained decline in stray dog numbers over time, along with improved public safety outcomes.

By ensuring that a majority of dogs were sterilised and vaccinated, the city reportedly reduced aggressive behaviour, stabilised populations, and minimised the risk of rabies outbreaks.

The advocate argued that replicating such models across the country would cost significantly less than large-scale removal and align better with India’s existing animal welfare laws, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Rising Public Anxiety Over Dog Bites and Safety

The issue of stray dogs has become increasingly polarising, particularly following reports of dog bite incidents in residential areas, schools, and public spaces. Several states and municipal bodies have faced public pressure to “remove” dogs after incidents involving children and elderly residents.

These concerns were part of the background to the Supreme Court’s November 7 order, which had sought stricter compliance from states and local authorities in implementing dog population control measures.

However, animal welfare groups argue that public discourse often overlooks scientific evidence and global best practices in favour of quick, visible actions.

Experts have repeatedly pointed out that aggressive removal drives dogs into unfamiliar territories, increasing stress and the likelihood of conflict, while failing to address the root cause—unchecked breeding.

Animal Welfare Experts vs Civic Bodies

The courtroom arguments highlighted the ongoing tension between civic authorities seeking immediate solutions and animal welfare advocates pushing for long-term, humane strategies.

While municipalities often cite lack of funds, manpower, and infrastructure to run effective sterilisation programmes, experts counter that sporadic or poorly implemented ABC initiatives are the real problem.

Gauri Mulekhi’s work across multiple states was cited to demonstrate that sustained investment in sterilisation and vaccination yields measurable results over time. The submission suggested that policy inconsistency, rather than feasibility, remains the biggest obstacle to success.

The Supreme Court has, in earlier judgments, recognised sterilisation as the most effective way to control stray dog populations, but implementation has varied widely across states.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions of the Debate

Beyond cost and logistics, the case also touches upon ethical and legal questions. Indian law recognises street dogs as part of urban ecosystems and prohibits their arbitrary removal or relocation. Any policy shift towards mass confinement would require legislative backing and strict safeguards.

Venugopal cautioned that moving away from established legal frameworks could invite further litigation, social unrest, and ethical concerns, particularly in a country where animal welfare is constitutionally linked to citizens’ duties.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

At The Logical Indian, we believe that public safety and compassion for animals must go hand in hand.

The staggering Rs 26,800 crore estimate placed before the Supreme Court underscores the need for reasoned, humane, and evidence-based policymaking, rather than fear-driven reactions to isolated incidents.

Successful models like Lucknow show that coexistence is possible when governance is consistent, communities are involved, and science guides decision-making.

Investing in sterilisation, vaccination, awareness, and accountability is not just more humane-it is more effective and economical in the long run