Madras High Court steps in to enforce Supreme Court order on stray dogs
The Madras High Court has taken up a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to ensure strict implementation of recent Supreme Court orders aimed at protecting people from stray dogs in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan will hear the case on Monday, June 22, 2026. The Chief Secretaries and secretaries of the Animal Husbandry, Health, and Municipal Administration departments in both regions have been named as respondents.
On Friday, May 19, 2026, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria ruled that the unchecked population of stray dogs poses a serious threat to public safety. The Bench stated: “Compassion for animal life, howsoever important, cannot be interpreted in a manner that compels citizens to endure recurring threats to their own lives, safety and bodily integrity... When the safety and lives of human beings are weighed against the interests and welfare of sentient beings, the constitutional balance must necessarily and unequivocally tilt in favour of the preservation and protection of human life.”
The Supreme Court took note of a news report in The Hindu on May 6, 2026, titled ‘In just four months of 2026, Tamil Nadu records 2.63 lakh dog bites, 17 deaths’. The judges expressed shock over 6.25 lakh dog bite cases and 34 deaths in the state in 2025, attributing the crisis to the failure of state governments and union territories to effectively implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework, formulated in 2001.
The top court observed that stray dogs removed from premises such as educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands, and railway stations do not have an absolute right to be re-released in the same places; they should be transferred only to animal shelters. The court also upheld a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India on November 27, 2025, which expanded the definition of ‘institutional premises’ to include public spaces like religious places, parks, tourist sites, and recreational areas.
The Bench emphasised the need for establishing sufficient ABC centres in every district, appointing adequate veterinarians and trained staff, conducting regular sterilisation and vaccination programmes, removing stray dogs from institutional premises, creating helpline numbers for reporting dog bites, and promoting adoption of stray dogs. Recognising the difficulty of monitoring nationwide implementation, the Supreme Court requested High Courts to take up suo motu PILs, granting them liberty to adapt directions to local conditions.
