A state can report impressive animal-welfare numbers and still be losing. Himachal Pradesh told its High Court that it had vaccinated 26,564 stray dogs in six months. In the same period it sterilised 3,709. The court’s response went to the heart of a confusion that runs through stray dog management across India: vaccination and sterilisation solve two completely different problems, and only one of them affects how many dogs there are.
What the court said
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi pulled up the Himachal Pradesh government over inadequate sterilisation of stray dogs.
The bench made two observations that matter beyond Himachal.
First, that there was excessive emphasis on vaccination. Second, that dependence on private veterinarians and NGOs would not help control the stray dog population.
The court noted that the Supreme Court’s directions had clearly stressed operational control and sterilisation capacity as the means of reducing the stray dog population in the long run — and that the state was missing this crucial aspect.
The matter was being heard as a compliance case under the Supreme Court’s directions on stray dog management. It has been listed next for 3 December.
The two numbers, and why they are not the same thing
Between 1 January and 30 June 2026, Himachal Pradesh reported:
| Intervention | Number |
|---|---|
| Dogs vaccinated | 26,564 |
| Dogs sterilised | 3,709 |
Roughly seven dogs vaccinated for every one sterilised.
This ratio is the entire issue, and it is worth being clear about why.
Rabies vaccination protects people. A vaccinated dog that bites someone is far less likely to transmit rabies. It is essential public health work, and 26,564 is a real achievement.
Vaccination does not reduce the number of dogs by one. A vaccinated dog breeds exactly as before. Vaccination coverage has to be repeated — immunity lapses, and new unvaccinated puppies keep arriving.
Only sterilisation changes the population. And because dogs breed faster than most sterilisation programmes operate, coverage has to cross a high threshold — commonly cited at around 70% of the fertile population — before numbers begin falling rather than merely slowing.
Vaccination campaigns are faster, cheaper and easier to count. Sterilisation needs an operation theatre, a surgeon, anaesthesia, post-operative holding and recovery space. The incentive to report the easier number is obvious. That is what the court was pointing at.
What the state’s own affidavit admitted
The compliance affidavit filed by the state government was not a document of denial. It conceded a great deal.
31 ABC centres were functioning across Himachal, with the exception of Lahaul and Spiti, where the stray dog population was described as very low. Of these, 17 operate under urban local bodies and 14 within animal husbandry department institutions. A further 12 ABC centres had been proposed at a meeting chaired by the chief secretary on 31 July.
The animal husbandry department had designated 74 veterinarians for the programme.
On securing public premises, 16,319 institutions — primarily educational institutions, hospitals, primary health centres and community health centres — had been identified for securing their premises against stray dogs. Directions had been issued on fencing, and nodal officers appointed to oversee implementation of the ABC Rules.
Two stray dog shelters had been established, under the Shimla and Dharamshala municipal corporations.
And then the part that explains the sterilisation figure. District-level committees had themselves identified infrastructure gaps: inadequately equipped operation theatres, shortages of veterinarians and trained staff, and a lack of land for constructing ABC centres and dog shelters.
A state cannot sterilise at scale without theatres, surgeons and land. Its own districts said it had gaps in all three.
What the amicus curiae found
Amicus curiae advocate Ragini Dogra placed specific findings before the court.
Some centres were temporary rather than permanent, including those at Bilaspur and Ner Chowk in Mandi. Sterilisation work in Kullu district was being handled by an NGO.
In Kinnaur, she pointed to the absence of sterilisation altogether — despite 536 vaccinations having been carried out.
That single district is the whole argument in miniature. Vaccination happened. Sterilisation did not. The dog population in Kinnaur is therefore exactly where it was, with better rabies protection.
The Shimla problem
The submissions on Shimla were the sharpest.
Despite vaccination campaigns, the municipal corporation had no permanent veterinary officer at its ABC-AR centres for two years.
According to the affidavit, only 316 stray dogs had been sterilised as of 5 October.
A clarification matters here. That figure sits in the portion of the hearing dealing with Shimla, between a submission about Shimla’s missing veterinary officer and the court’s direction on filling Shimla’s veterinary post. It should not be read as the statewide total, which is 3,709 for the first half of the year. Reported as a state figure it would be plainly wrong.
Read as Shimla’s figure, it is far more serious than it first appears. Shimla’s stray dog population has been estimated at around 4,500 animals across 34 wards, against 817 dog bite cases recorded in a six-month period. Three hundred and sixteen sterilisations against that base is not a programme running slowly. It is a programme that has effectively not started.
The court’s response was direct: merely outsourcing sterilisation to NGOs or private doctors would not suffice. A permanent veterinary doctor was needed to carry out the procedure regularly. The court directed the authorities to fill the veterinary post at Shimla by the next hearing, either through deputation or appointment.
Why “outsource it to an NGO” keeps failing
The court’s finding on NGOs and private veterinarians deserves care, because it is easily misread as hostility toward animal welfare organisations.
It is not. NGOs run some of the most competent ABC programmes in India — Lucknow’s, which the Supreme Court has cited as a national benchmark, is run in partnership with one.
The problem is structural dependence without capacity. When a municipality has no permanent veterinary officer of its own, sterilisation happens only when an external party is available, funded and contracted. Volume depends on someone else’s calendar. Continuity breaks whenever a contract lapses or a dispute arises.
Himachal’s own record illustrates it. Kullu’s sterilisation is being done by an NGO. Shimla has had no permanent vet for two years. Kinnaur has done none. In each case the state has outsourced the function rather than built the capacity — and the output figures follow.
A partner can extend capacity. A partner cannot be the capacity.
The jurisdiction question
One piece of context belongs alongside this order.
In August 2026, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Vikram Nath expanded the scope of its suo motu stray dog proceedings and transferred to itself stray dog cases pending in high courts, with a view to framing a national policy. It impleaded all states and union territories, and directed municipal authorities to file compliance affidavits with complete statistics on pounds, veterinarians, dog-catching personnel, vehicles and cages.
High courts have nonetheless continued to monitor state-level compliance, as Himachal’s bench is doing here. The two tracks are running in parallel: the Supreme Court working toward a uniform national framework, high courts holding individual states to the directions already issued.
What to watch
3 December. Whether Shimla’s veterinary post has actually been filled, and what the next affidavit shows.
The 12 proposed ABC centres. A proposal made at a chief secretary’s meeting in July is not a centre. Watch for sanction, land and construction.
The ratio. The single most useful number in Himachal’s next affidavit is not how many dogs were vaccinated. It is how many were sterilised, and against what estimated population.
Comparison worth making. The Kerala High Court has required local bodies to file compliance reports by the 10th of every month, classifying each as full, part or non-compliant. Himachal’s next hearing is two months away. The difference in monitoring frequency is itself a policy choice.
Pets News Network is India’s first dedicated media platform for the pet and animal industry. For breaking global pet news, brand coverage, and advertising enquiries, contact: info@petsnewsnetwork.com
