Delhi’s Veterinary Services See Budget Cut Despite Stray Animal Surge
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has sparked debate among animal welfare advocates after earmarking only Rs 108.43 crore for veterinary services in its proposed 2025–26 budget. This figure accounts for just 0.64% of the corporation’s total Rs 17,002.66 crore expenditure outlay, a sharp reduction from the Rs 134.86 crore allocated in the 2024–25 budget. The cut of Rs 26 crore has raised alarms over the civic body’s ability to address the capital’s growing stray animal population and improve shelter infrastructure.
Funding Overshadowed by Other Civic Priorities
While the veterinary budget has been scaled down, other major civic sectors have received significant boosts. Sanitation services lead with an allocation of Rs 4,907.11 crore, while public health and medical relief—which technically includes veterinary services—has been granted Rs 13,835.11 crore. Education stands at a staggering Rs 16,937.63 crore, with public works and street lighting allotted Rs 2,899 crore and general administration receiving Rs 3,542.29 crore.
In comparison, the horticulture department has been allocated Rs 393.26 crore, which is 3.6 times more than veterinary services, while community services get Rs 71.36 crore. The stark disparity has prompted criticism from activists who believe animal health and welfare remain low on the city’s priority list.
Impact on Stray Animal Welfare
Delhi has long struggled with a rising stray animal population, especially dogs. The limited veterinary funding casts doubt on the city’s capacity to expand sterilisation drives, improve existing shelters, and manage the care of injured or abandoned animals. The city’s shelters are often overcrowded, under-resourced, and unable to meet the rising demand for animal care.
Animal rights groups argue that reducing the budget at a time when the city is facing increased cases of dog bites and rabies is both risky and counterproductive. They emphasise that underfunding not only hampers sterilisation programmes but also impacts public health.
Supreme Court Orders and Legal Context
The allocation comes amid a contentious legal backdrop. Recently, the Supreme Court of India directed civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to relocate stray dogs from residential areas to shelters in response to rising dog bite incidents. This order drew sharp criticism from animal welfare advocates, who warned it could lead to overcrowding in shelters and increase animal suffering.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai later assured that the court would revisit the relocation directive, acknowledging a previous court order that prohibits both the killing and forced relocation of stray dogs. That earlier ruling mandated adherence to existing animal protection laws, focusing instead on sterilisation and vaccination.
Activists Question Feasibility
Animal welfare organisations have questioned whether Rs 108.43 crore is remotely sufficient to meet these legal obligations, especially when sterilisation and vaccination drives require consistent funding. They argue that Delhi’s stray dog population—estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands—needs urgent attention, not budget cuts.
Dr. Kavita Sharma, a Delhi-based veterinarian, expressed concern:
“This is not just about animal welfare; it’s about public health. Stray animal management, vaccinations, and sterilisation are critical to preventing diseases like rabies. With this budget, I fear we’re moving backward.”
The Way Forward
Experts suggest that a sustainable solution will require the MCD to reassess funding priorities, ensure collaboration with NGOs, and explore public-private partnerships to expand veterinary care facilities. They also recommend community engagement programmes to promote responsible pet ownership, which can reduce the influx of abandoned animals into shelters.
For now, the reduced budget raises concerns that Delhi’s stray animal crisis may worsen, with both animal welfare and public health potentially paying the price. As the capital grapples with urban growth and rising civic demands, the question remains—will animals continue to be the silent victims of budgetary trade-offs?
