Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Delhi Government to file its response on steps to be taken to implement an action plan for elimination of rabies from stray dogs by 2030.

A division bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajnish Kumar Gupta sought response of the Delhi Government on the action plan filed by amicus curaie- Ms. Gauri Maulekhi.

“The counsel appearing for GNCTD prays and is granted four weeks time to obtain instructions and file a response to the action plan and suggestions and recommendations made by the amicus curiae,” the Court directed.

“Go through these. (These are) good suggestions and recommendations. How to implement them,” the Bench told Delhi Government's counsel.

The Court was hearing a suo motu PIL registered to monitor compliance with Supreme Court directions to remove dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, etc.

Last month, the Court had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to identity one ward each in their area and organize a camp for sterlization and vaccination of stray dogs there, as a pilot project.

During the hearing today, Advocate Manu Chaturvedi appearing for MCD told the Court that four camps were organized in Anand Vihar ward on August 21, August 25, September 03 and September 07.

He said that a total of 43 dogs were caught, sterlized and vaccinated and were released in their respective areas, with the active help of dog feeders and the amicus.

He said that as suggested by the amicus and stakeholders, due publicity was done about the camps and there was active cooperation with the camps being held in seamless manner. He also told Court that there was no resistance from the public or any organisation.

The Bench was informed by the parties that the camps be continued to be held in the manner as they are being done now and atleast one ward be declared as rabies free and dogs be vaccinated and sterilised.

Further, Chaturvedi submitted that MCD will take into account and actively consider the suggestions made by amicus and the stakeholders positively. He prayed that the matter be listed after four weeks by which MCD will hold more camps and file a comprehensive report.

The counsel appearing for NDMC told Court that camps were organized on eight days during which a total of 28 dogs were caught and 615 dogs were vaccinated.

It was also submitted that school awareness programs were conducted by the corporation and that more camps will be held.

The matter will now be heard next month.

Apex Court had directed that all jurisdictional High Courts, while undertaking the monitoring exercise, shall be fully empowered to take appropriate action including initiation of contempt proceedings against the erring officials responsible for non-compliance, inaction, or wilful disregard of judicial directions.

The Court had opined that entrusting High Courts with monitoring and compliance with these directions as well as earlier directions for removal of stray dogs from public places would ensure closer engagement with local conditions and timely corrective intervention.

Thus, the Top Court had directed all High Courts to register a suo motu writ petition in the name of “In Re Compliance With The Directions Issued By Supreme Court…” for monitoring compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had said that the concerned High Courts would be at liberty to expand the scope of the directions to address local conditions, without diluting the Supreme Court's directions.

The matter arose from the Supreme Court's suo motu proceedings on stray dog attacks. On November 7, 2025, the Court had directedremoval of stray dogs from educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations and similar public spaces, and ordered that dogs picked up from such places should not be released back to the same locations after sterilisation and vaccination.

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION REGARDING COMPLAINCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT & other connected matters

Tags: