The Madras High Court has taken up a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petition to ensure strict implementation of the recent Supreme Court orders for protecting people from stray dogs in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan will be hearing the case on Monday.
The Chief Secretaries and secretaries to the Animal Husbandry, Health and Municipal Administration departments in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry have been arrayed as respondents to the case. The move comes after a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the unchecked population of dogs has become increasingly feral, posing a serious threat to public safety in densely populated areas. The Bench emphasized that compassion for animal life cannot be interpreted in a manner that compels citizens to endure recurring threats to their own lives, safety, and bodily integrity.
The judges also observed that the safety and lives of human beings must take precedence over the interests and welfare of sentient beings. The Supreme Court’s order was prompted by alarming statistics, including 2.63 lakh dog bites and 17 deaths in Tamil Nadu in just four months of 2026. The judges attributed the problem to the failure of State governments and union territories to implement the Animal Birth Control (ABC) framework effectively.
The top court held that stray dogs picked up for sterilisation do not possess an absolute right to be re-released in the same places from where they were picked up and should be transferred only to animal shelters. The court also upheld the validity of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India, expanding the definition of ‘institutional premises’ to public spaces. The Bench impressed upon the need for establishing sufficient ABC centres, appointment of veterinarians, and conduct of regular sterilisation and vaccination programmes.
Since it would be difficult for the top court to monitor the implementation of its orders at a pan-India level, it requested the High Courts to take up suo motu PIL petitions, giving them liberty to expand or tailor the scope of such directions as necessary to address local conditions and exigencies.
