Madras High Court Seeks Action Taken Reports on Stray Dog Menace

The Madras High Court on June 22, 2026 directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Union Territory of Puducherry to place on record the steps taken to address the stray dog menace in public spaces, particularly educational institutions and hospitals, in compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the direction while taking up proceedings initiated suo motu pursuant to the Supreme Court's order requiring high courts across the country to monitor implementation of measures aimed at preventing stray dog-related incidents in public places.

The bench issued notices to the State of Tamil Nadu and the Puducherry administration, seeking detailed status reports on the measures adopted in four weeks.

Court indicated that educational institutions and healthcare facilities should receive immediate priority given the safety concerns involved. The matter has been adjourned till July 21, 2026. 

The proceedings stem from a nationwide exercise initiated by the Supreme Court in May 2026. While dealing with concerns regarding increasing incidents involving stray dogs, the apex court directed every high court to register suo motu proceedings and oversee compliance with its directions relating to the management of stray dogs in public areas. The Supreme Court had observed that closer monitoring by the respective high courts would enable quicker corrective measures based on local conditions.

The Apex Court had also cautioned authorities that failure to comply with its directions could invite contempt proceedings. It stressed that public institutions such as schools, colleges, hospitals, bus terminals and railway stations should not become unsafe because of unchecked stray dog populations.

In its May order, the Supreme Court identified several factors contributing to the continuing problem. These included inadequate implementation of sterilisation programmes, ineffective waste management practices that attract animals, and the absence of sufficient preventive infrastructure around public institutions. Court noted that despite previous directions, the issue had persisted in several parts of the country, raising concerns relating to public safety and public health.

The issue of stray dogs and public safety has increasingly come under judicial scrutiny across the country. Last month, the Supreme Court underscored that human life and safety cannot be compromised while dealing with the stray dog issue. The top court suggested that rabid and exceptionally aggressive stray dogs posing a threat to human life may have to be euthanised in accordance with law, while stressing the need to strike a balance between animal welfare concerns and public safety.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had also directed authorities across states and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from schools, hospitals, court complexes, bus stands, railway stations and other public institutions and shift them to designated shelters. Court observed that institutional spaces must remain safe for children, patients and the general public, and called upon local bodies to take immediate corrective measures to address the growing menace.

High courts too have expressed concern over the issue. In Kerala, the high court, while hearing matters relating to the increasing number of stray dog attacks in 2024, questioned whether those feeding and caring for stray dogs should be required to obtain licences and assume responsibility for the animals. The court had then noted that the stray dog population was continuing to rise despite existing control measures and sought suggestions to tackle the problem effectively.

In 2023, while dealing with a suo motu public interest litigation initiated after a stray dog attack resulted in the death of a young boy and injuries to his sister in Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court examined the measures being undertaken by the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to control the stray dog population. The municipal body informed the court that sterilisation drives were being carried out and that the killing or relocation of stray dogs was prohibited under the existing legal framework. The court also recorded that the injured child had been provided free medical treatment and that financial assistance of ₹1.5 lakh had been extended to the family. Observing that the immediate concerns raised in the matter had been addressed and noting the steps taken by the civic authorities, the division bench closed the suo motu proceedings.