In Chennai a serious accusation came to light in March 2026, namely that some of the community dogs caught as part of the city’s Animal Birth Control programme had been sent to the Madras Veterinary College for veterinary training.
This claim at once led to a question: were the dogs being given the sterilisation treatment they needed under supervised clinical conditions, or were they instead being given a form of treatment that went beyond what was required for their care?
The evidence that is publicly available gives part of the answer; it shows that 100 dogs were transferred and that a supervised surgical training programme existed. However, it does not prove what happened to each dog nor does it support the claims that excessive anaesthesia led to several deaths.
What officials confirmed
The Greater Chennai Corporation admitted that 100 dogs had been sent to Madras Veterinary College as a result of an instruction from the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department. A senior doctor from the college, cited by DT Next, denied the accusations of mistreatment and stated that veterinary training took place under the guidance of experienced professors, the surgeries being carried out in the college’s operating theatre. The Corporation added that the transfer had taken place only once and that no further dogs had been sent.¹
The animal rights activist V. Sudhamathy claimed that dogs were given heavy anaesthesia for long periods so that the veterinarians could watch the procedures being carried out and that in some cases the animals died. Although these are serious allegations, the news article did not provide the operation records, the mortality figures, the postmortem findings or an official inspection report to back them up.¹
The most accurate conclusion we can currently draw is that the dogs were transferred as part of a veterinary training programme. However, the public evidence available does not indicate what happened to each animal after being transferred.
The larger state programme
The transfer took place during the major expansion of the programme aimed at controlling the dog population in Tamil Nadu.
In 2025 the state stated that it intended to train 500 veterinarians in sterilisation surgery, train an additional 500 people in dog catching and provide equipment for 100 government veterinary facilities so that they could carry out Animal Birth Control, or ABC, operations.²
A later statement from an official TANUVAS social media account referred to a 14 day programme called Animal Birth Control Surgeries, which was sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board. The account stated that the training took place in 32 batches from 26 September 2025 to 24 March 2026 and included the veterinary gynaecology and obstetrics departments of all seven of the TANUVAS constituent colleges.³
The departmental website of Madras Veterinary College also states that 115 veterinarians from the Animal Husbandry Department and the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board received training in ABC surgery, canine artificial insemination and work on infertility. The page does not indicate how many of these veterinarians took part in the 2025–26 programme or how many of them were trained specifically in ABC surgery.⁴
The fact that the state programme was timed and focused on this particular subject suggests though it by no means proves that the 100 dogs supplied by the Corporation were used as clinical cases in order to gain experience in the supervised sterilisation of animals and thus to increase the government’s ABC capacity.
Is it inherently cruel to carry out supervised training on community dogs?
It doesn’t have to. The phrase used for training can refer to a great many different kinds of practice.
In a well managed clinical programme, a community dog which needs to be sterilised has that operation carried out at the same time as the veterinarian gains knowledge or improves their technique under direct supervision. The dog must have a suitable pre-operative examination, be given anaesthesia, receive pain relief, be vaccinated and get proper postoperative care before it is sent back to the place from which it was caught.
The setup is advantageous for both the animal and the general community since the dog gets sterilised and vaccinated against rabies and the veterinarian who takes part gains the skills necessary to carry out further procedures safely.
Ethical and legal issues occur when an animal is subjected to a procedure which it does not need, is kept anaesthetised for a period that goes beyond what is clinically necessary, is not given adequate monitoring or pain relief, or is not given the appropriate postoperative care. The complaint made in Chennai cites some of these shortcomings, while the college says that experienced professors were in charge of the operation. However, neither of the two versions can be properly evaluated without referring to the original clinical records.
Understanding the organ identification allegation
The complaint also mentioned dogs being used for organ identification. Although this phrase might suggest procedures going beyond sterilisation, the ABC process offers a less scary alternative explanation.
Sterilisation involves the removal of the reproductive organs, namely the testes in male dogs and the ovaries, together with the uterus in females. According to India’s Animal Birth Control Rules, the reproductive organs removed during such operations must be kept in formaldehyde, then counted and recorded before being disposed of.⁵
The purpose of this documentation is to confirm that sterilisation procedures have been carried out and to prevent false allegations; merely showing trainees the reproductive organs removed in the course of a medically necessary operation would not on its own show that an extra experimental procedure had taken place.
The welfare issue would be quite different if unnecessary internal examination had been carried out merely for the sake of demonstration. There is currently no publicly available evidence to show that this extra procedure was carried out on the dogs.
What the ABC Rules require
The 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules establish a detailed chain of custody for community dogs that have been captured.
Dogs must be identified when they arrive at an ABC centre, and their identification numbers must correspond with their capture records. Healthy and sick animals must be separated. Sterilisation and vaccination must be performed by a veterinarian in a properly equipped operating theatre under the prescribed supervision. ⁵
The rules state that, after surgery, the animal must have at least four days of postoperative care during which it is given adequate food and drinking water. When fully recovered, dogs should generally be released in the same area in which they were caught, and the date, the time and the place of release must be recorded.⁵
The responsible authority should also keep records relating to treatment, mortality, vehicles, and releases. Monthly reports have to include information about deaths which occurred before, during or after surgery, details of any postoperative complications and the number of operations carried out by each registered veterinarian. Furthermore, the rules require an organ inspection record and the retention of recent CCTV footage.⁵
These requirements leave several important unanswered questions:
What were the identification numbers and the places where the 100 dogs were captured?
Was the part of the facility that was used for the operations included in the ABC project recognition required?
What procedure was noted for each dog?
Who was the registered veterinarian in charge of each operation?
What number of dogs had complications or died?
At what time and place was each of the surviving dogs released?
The guidance of experienced professors constitutes an important clinical safeguard, but it does not meet the legal requirements concerning identification, care, record-keeping and release.
The current evidence leads to a small number of conclusions.
The Greater Chennai Corporation has admitted that it sent 100 dogs to Madras Veterinary College as a result of instructions from the Animal Husbandry Department.¹
It was confirmed by a senior doctor at the college that surgical training under supervision did take place there.¹
A larger, state backed ABC surgery training scheme was carried out at the TANUVAS colleges during that same period.²³
It is reasonable to infer that the 100 dogs were likely provided as part of the clinical sterilisation programme for that broader training programme. However, no publicly available document directly associates each dog with a specific training batch or operation.
It is an unsubstantiated claim that some dogs were given excessive or prolonged anaesthesia as a result of which they died. Currently, there is no publicly available mortality data or investigation finding that verifies this claim.¹
Unknown: Whether every dog survived, recovered and was returned to its original locality. No public dog by dog outcome or release record was located.
The records that could resolve the case
The Greater Chennai Corporation had the possibility of publishing the transfer order of the Animal Husbandry Department, the originating ABC centres, the identification numbers, the capture locations, the vehicle logs and the release records.
The Madras Veterinary College and TANUVAS could make available their training schedule, dog admission register, operation and anaesthesia sheets, the postoperative treatment records, mortality register, and the handover documentation.
The Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board had the possibility of publishing the programme sanction, the training curriculum, the inspection reports and the project recognition status of the facility which is operating.
A table in which the dogs had been given anonymous identification numbers would be able to answer the main questions and at the same time remain simple, including the identification number, the place where they were captured, the date on which they were admitted, the procedure carried out, the veterinarian in charge, any complications, the outcome, and the date and location of their release.
If the records indicate that all 100 dogs had the necessary sterilisation carried out, received the proper care and were safely returned, then the publication would alleviate public concern and help to safeguard the reputations of the vets and the organisations concerned. But if the records show any deaths, missing animals or instances where the required protocol was not followed, they would indicate whether an independent investigation should be carried out.
Transparency is part of animal welfare
Community dogs are not considered disposable since they have no individual owners; instead they are a part of neighbourhoods, are usually looked after by residents, and are safeguarded by rules which require the authorities to keep records of how they treat them and to return them. Once a public body has caught a dog for a particular purpose, it takes on the responsibility of keeping account of that animal.
It therefore suggests, though it does not definitely prove that the 100 dogs were employed as clinical patients in Tamil Nadu’s state run ABC training scheme. The claims regarding excessive use of anaesthesia and several deaths have not been verified, and at the same time the authorities have not made publicly available any records showing the results and the release of each dog.
Making the records public would turn suspicion into evidence; and since the programme is one concerned with animal welfare, such transparency should be seen as part of its duty of care.
Sources
DT Next: “Chennai Corporation sending stray dogs from sterilisation programme to train veterinary doctors, alleges activist”
Dinamalar: Tamil Nadu announcement on veterinary training and expansion of ABC facilities
Official TANUVAS account of the 2025–26 ABC-surgery training programme
Madras Veterinary College, Department of Veterinary Gynaecology and Obstetrics