13 August 2025
(Mains: Editorials Simplified)

HUMAN–ANIMAL CONFLICT IN URBAN SPACES

The Supreme Court’s recent directive to confine all street dogs in Delhi-NCR marks one of the most assertive judicial interventions in urban animal management. The order exposes a governance dilemma – balancing public health, urban safety, animal welfare, and statutory compliance. Similar conflicts are seen globally where rapid urbanisation compresses human–animal interfaces.

Background Dynamics

• Legal Framework:

  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – drafted for a largely rural India; lacks urban-specific provisions.

  • Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 – endorse Capture–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) with limited scope for permanent confinement.

• Judicial Context: Past rulings generally upheld CNVR; current SC order departs from precedent by favouring permanent impoundment.

• Urban Ecology: Expansion of informal settlements, poor waste disposal, and lack of pet ownership regulation have escalated stray animal populations.

• Global Parallel: Cities like Istanbul and Bangkok have grappled with similar challenges, experimenting with mixed approaches – regulated feeding zones, adoption drives, and controlled shelters.

Core Issues and Dimensions

• Public Health and Safety

  • Dog bites and rabies remain significant urban health threats, particularly for low-income communities with limited access to post-exposure prophylaxis.

  • Presence of free-roaming animals increases road accidents, zoonotic disease risk, and fear-related psychological stress among residents.

• Legal & Administrative Conflict

  • Clash between statutory rules (ABC, 2023) and judicial directives creates operational paralysis for municipal bodies.

  • Risk of contempt of court vs prosecution under existing rules.

• Ethical & Socio-Cultural Considerations

  • Debate between animal rights advocates (against confinement) and public safety proponents (for stricter control).

  • Romanticisation of “community animals” vs practical realities of high-density urban living.

• Governance & Capacity Gaps

  • Limited shelter infrastructure; inadequate veterinary capacity; absence of uniform shelter standards.

  • Fiscal constraints prevent large-scale sterilisation drives or humane long-term care facilities.

Arguments on Removal/Confinement Policies

• Potential Advantages

  • Reduces immediate risk of bites and disease spread.

  • Allows systematic health monitoring and vaccination of confined animals.

  • Frees public spaces, improving perceived and actual safety.

• Potential Drawbacks

  • Overcrowded, underfunded shelters can lead to inhumane conditions.

  • Complete removal disrupts ecological balance – rodent population may surge in absence of canine predation.

  • Sudden interventions without community buy-in may provoke backlash or non-compliance.

Policy and Governance Pathways

• Legal Reform

  • Update PCA Act to address urban animal management, clearly categorising animals into adoptable, shelter-suited, and euthanasia-required groups.

  • Harmonise statutes with judicial directions to avoid conflicting compliance burdens.

• Infrastructure and Capacity Building

  • Establish shelter infrastructure with minimum standards for space, veterinary care, and sanitation.

  • Create dedicated municipal animal management units with trained personnel.

• Public Health Integration

  • Integrate stray animal control with broader urban public health strategies and vector control.

  • Include zoonotic disease surveillance in urban health mission frameworks.

• Community Engagement

  • Regulate feeding practices through designated zones to avoid clustering in vulnerable localities.

  • Promote responsible pet ownership – mandatory registration, sterilisation, and vaccination.

Concluding Perspective

Human–animal interaction in cities is no longer incidental – it is an inevitable by-product of urban expansion. A sustainable approach must combine legal clarity, humane management, robust infrastructure, and public health imperatives, ensuring neither urban residents nor animals are collateral in the process of city-making.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ELI SCHEME – A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

The Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme incentivises employers, particularly in manufacturing, to create jobs by linking financial benefits to employment numbers. While the intention is to address unemployment, the scheme’s design raises questions about inclusivity, structural reforms, and long-term employment sustainability.

Background

• Dual Labour Market Structure: India’s workforce is dominated by the informal sector (≈90%), with limited access to social security and formal contracts.

• Capital–Labour Asymmetry: Increasing mechanisation and capital-intensive growth have reduced labour absorption capacity, particularly in manufacturing.

• Skill Mismatch: Education and skilling systems are poorly aligned with industry requirements, resulting in underemployment and low productivity.

• Sectoral Employment Trends: Agriculture and services employ the bulk of the workforce, while share of manufacturing in total employment has been declining.

Challenges with ELI Scheme

• Design Limitations

  • Employer-centric incentives risk prioritising headcount over genuine productivity gains.

  • Exclusion of informal sector workers due to EPFO-linked eligibility creates policy asymmetry.

• Skill–Employment Gap

  • Inadequate vocational training infrastructure limits the employability of youth, making incentives less effective in creating productive jobs.

  • Risk of disguised unemployment and job relabelling to claim subsidies without net job creation.

• Sectoral Bias

  • Heavy focus on manufacturing overlooks the growing role of services and agri-based employment, where job elasticity could be higher for low-skilled workers.

  • Automation trends in manufacturing undermine the sector’s job creation potential.

• Equity Concerns

  • Potential reinforcement of structural inequalities by directing public funds towards already better-off formal enterprises.

  • Women, rural youth, and informal workers risk marginalisation in the absence of targeted inclusion measures.

Way Forward

• Inclusive Policy Design

  • Extend incentives to enterprises employing informal workers, with gradual formalisation as a policy outcome.

  • Introduce safeguards against misuse of subsidies through robust monitoring and job verification mechanisms.

• Skilling and Education Reform

  • Invest in vocational and industry-linked training programmes integrated into the formal education system.

  • Focus on region-specific and sector-specific skill development to match local economic opportunities.

• Sectoral Diversification

  • Expand incentives to labour-intensive service sectors (logistics, retail, tourism, healthcare) alongside agriculture-based value chains.

  • Support MSMEs and rural enterprises that have higher labour absorption capacities.

• Strengthening Labour Rights

  • Ensure that employment generation does not compromise wages, working conditions, or collective bargaining rights.

  • Introduce productivity-linked wage incentives for workers alongside employer subsidies.

• Sustainable Employment Strategy

  • Shift focus from short-term headcount to long-term productivity gains, skill upgradation, and career progression pathways.

  • Integrate ELI with broader social security coverage and portability for migrant workers.

Conclusion

The ELI Scheme signals an important intent to directly incentivise job creation, but its current structure risks reinforcing inequalities and inefficiencies in the labour market. Without concurrent investment in skilling, formalisation, and sectoral diversification, the scheme may generate low-quality or temporary employment.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………