On 19th August, Congress MP Gurjeet Singh Aujla asked in the Lok Sabha about the steps the Government of India was taking to control the growing menace of stray dogs. He asked if there is a national policy in place for the same. In response, Minister of State for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Prof SP Singh Baghel, gave a written reply.
The minister’s answer was straightforward. In the reply, the ministry said that stray dog management falls under the jurisdiction of state governments and urban local bodies. They are bound to carry out sterilisation and vaccination under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. These rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, are in line with World Organisation for Animal Health standards.
The ministry further added that the Centre provides limited financial support, that is, Rs 800 per dog and Rs 600 per cat for sterilisation and vaccination programmes, grants for shelters and veterinary hospitals, and assistance for anti-rabies vaccines. He also referred to advisories issued on multiple occasions that urged states to strengthen sterilisation drives.
Notably, the reply or the question did not mention the Supreme Court’s 11th August order directing Delhi-NCR authorities to remove stray dogs and put them in shelters in far-off areas. The process, which is supposed to happen in a phased manner, has been initiated. However, the matter has been referred to a larger bench which did not stay the 11th August judgment immediately and reserved the order on 14th August.
Furthermore, the reply by the ministry did not contain any new policy or announcement. It was a procedural status update and nothing more. The reply was also published by Press Information Bureau (PIB).
Activist spin on social media
Yet, the answer was spun into a narrative by a self-styled dog lover activist on social media. In her post on multiple platforms including X and Instagram, she declared it as “Good News” and claimed that the “Central Government comes out in support of their ABC Rules”. She further claimed that the government had “reiterated commitment to humane sterilisation” amid the Supreme Court order. Other self-styled dog lovers amplified this message, projecting a fresh policy stance while no such thing existed.
How media reports distorted the reply
Mainstream media also joined in. Times of India ran a piece suggesting that the government has cleared its stand which “validates the viewpoint of protesting animal rights activists” against the Supreme Court’s 11th August order. This is a false link. The reply in Parliament makes no mention of the apex court’s order.
Even the government’s broadcaster DD News interpreted it wrongly and dressed the procedural note as the Centre’s “resolve” to humane sterilisation. The report inserted details of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, which again were absent from the Lok Sabha record.
Deccan Herald also exaggerated by saying “Centre directs states” when in reality only advisories that were issued earlier were mentioned in the reply.
The staggering cost of a failed programme
Assuming India has around 5 crore stray dogs, and the Centre wants 70% of them sterilised under ABC Rules, that amounts to 3.5 crore dogs. At Rs 800 per dog, the total cost comes to a staggering Rs 28,000 crore. This is taxpayer money being funnelled into a programme that has already failed to control the dog population for over two decades.
Not to forget, this calculation does not even include the unbelievable burden of providing anti-rabies vaccines to tens of lakhs of bite victims every year. Why should citizens who do not wish to live surrounded by stray dogs be forced to pay for it? If NGOs and self-styled dog lovers insist that dogs remain on the streets, why is the financial burden not placed squarely on them instead of the public exchequer?
The real picture
The real picture is clear. The minister’s answer was a dry, bureaucratic explanation of existing schemes and responsibilities. There was nothing new, no confrontation with the Supreme Court, and no fresh policy. Yet, activists and sections of the media turned it into a manufactured headline, feeding a narrative that the Centre had “chosen sides” in the stray dog menace debate.
This is how a simple parliamentary reply, meant to reiterate existing procedures, was opportunistically twisted into a propaganda-filled narrative-setting message.
