'Common Man Is Really Troubled': Delhi High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL On Stray Dogs Management

The Apex Court had warned that continued non-compliance by officials may invite contempt proceedings.

A division bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the Delhi Government and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to file a comprehensive report in relation to the steps taken by them so far in compliance of Supreme Court's directions in the national capital, upto July 31.

The Bench also issued notice to Union Government as well as National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

During the hearing today, the Court asked the Delhi Government's counsel about the steps taken so far for stray dogs birth control, sterilisation and vaccination. It further inquired about the number of dog pounds and dog shelters made in the national capital.

As the counsel responded that the authorities are working on the issue, the Court orally remarked,

“There are too many stray dogs...Everybody is working. Sorry to say but I find, I don't know but even in High Court premises, there are many dogs with belt. Are they trained dogs? Does the High Court own them? Just out of curiosity. There are at least 15 dogs. Whenever I go to the S block, I find at least 10 dogs with collar. Are they pets? I don't know. They are Indian dogs.”

“I don't know about Delhi but in Rajasthan, there are two sects. One is against pets, other is dog lovers. Even calling them dogs is sometimes an issue…. We have to strike a balance. I don't know what is your stand but these days it is a big fight between dog lovers and dog haters. Public is really troubled. The common man is really troubled. Every day there are dog bites… monkey menace is even more serious,” the Bench added.

The Court then asked the authorities to prepare a report and file it a day before the next date of hearing i.e. August 03.

The 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 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.

“A Pan-India monitoring exercise by this court in respect of the day-to-day compliance would not only be administratively burdensome and timely and time intensive, but may also not achieve the degree of responsiveness and efficacy that the situation demands. On the other hand, entrusting the High Courts with the responsibility of monitoring would ensure closer engagement with the local conditions, timely corrective intervention and more effective enforcement of the directions suit, while also enabling the formulation of the context sensitive measures suited to the peculiar needs of each state and region”, the Supreme Court had observed.

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