Meghalaya HC: Capture, Vaccinate and Observe Stray Dogs Before Release

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that stray dogs in the State must first be captured, inoculated, vaccinated, and medically treated before being considered for release into public spaces. The Court made it clear that freeing aggressive animals without such safeguards would endanger citizens, noting that the menace of stray dogs in Meghalaya bore peculiar and distinctive features that distinguished it from similar problems in other parts of the country.

A division bench of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh was hearing a public interest litigation concerning recurring incidents of stray dog attacks in Shillong and other districts.

During the hearing, the Advocate General drew the Court’s attention to the Supreme Court’s ruling in City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1792, which directed that writ petitions pending in High Courts concerning stray dog issues be transferred to the Top court for analogous consideration.

Paragraph 36 of that judgment specifically required the registries of all High Courts to forward such matters to the Supreme Court.

However, the Meghalaya High Court observed that while many of the issues were common, the State’s circumstances were exceptional.

The bench recorded that in Meghalaya, a significant number of strays were “biter dogs” that were highly vicious in nature, frequently attacking unsuspecting people in streets and public places.

Unlike other States where the problem was primarily linked to population control and nuisance, the threat in Meghalaya, the Court said, was far more immediate and dangerous.

The case was filed by petitioner Kaustav Paul, who highlighted incidents of attacks on children, the elderly, and even motorists.

The petitioners argued that unchecked proliferation of stray dogs had become a matter of grave public safety.

Earlier, the High Court had already directed State authorities to capture aggressive dogs, subject them to inoculation and vaccination, and keep them in shelters for a period of observation before release. That process, the Court said, was vital not only for public safety but also to ensure humane treatment of the animals.

In its latest order, the Court reiterated that releasing aggressive dogs without ensuring they had ceased to be dangerous would pose a grave danger to the public. The bench added that capture and vaccination were not merely administrative steps but a judicially mandated safeguard that balanced the interests of human life with compassion for animals.

"With dogs of this nature, freeing them without satisfaction that they have ceased to be biter dogs, and allowing them to frequent public places would pose grave danger to the public," the bench said, underscoring the risks of premature release.

The Advocate General submitted that in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, the Registry of the High Court was required to transfer the case.

The bench, however, reasoned that an automatic transfer would deprive the State of necessary judicial oversight tailored to its unique conditions.

The Court observed that while the Supreme Court was rightly pursuing a centralized solution to address common issues of stray dog management nationwide, a blanket approach could not apply to Meghalaya, where the aggression of the dogs created an exceptional situation.

Accordingly, the bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to make a formal application before the Supreme Court seeking clarification and leave to retain the matter.

The bench strongly recommended that the PIL remain in the High Court, stressing that the peculiar menace of aggressive stray dogs in Meghalaya justified localized adjudication.

The order reflects the balance the judiciary seeks to strike between centralized adjudication by the Supreme Court and localized solutions responsive to specific threats. By emphasizing vaccination, inoculation, and observation before release, the Court has placed both humane treatment and public safety at the heart of its approach.

The matter will next be taken up on October 15, 2025, when the High Court is expected to review a report from the Registrar General on the steps taken before the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Date of order: August 30, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh