It may be noted that on May 19, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed all High Courts in the country to register suo motu writ petitions to monitor compliance with its directions to remove dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, etc. The Supreme Court had also warned that it would initiate contempt proceedings if the officials did not comply with the orders.

While directing the High Court to monitor the implementation, 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.

The court had passed the directions while disposing of applications challenging the Standard Operating Procedures issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) pursuant to the Court's November 7, 2025 order. The court had directed the States and Union Territories to take time-bound steps to strengthen infrastructure for sterilisation and vaccination programmes and establish at least one fully functional Animal Birth Control centre in every district. The court also directed the States and Union Territories to ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin in government medical facilities.

Following the SC direction, the Madras High Court had registered a suo motu case. The court had previously directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Puducherry government to submit a detailed report on the steps taken by them to implement the order of the Supreme Court. The bench had orally remarked that priority should be given to educational institutions and hospitals.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on Tuesday, Additional Advocate General PV Balasubramniam informed the court that a status report was being prepared and requested a week's time to file the same.

To this, the court said that though the report may contain the steps taken by the State to implement the order, no effective steps were visibly seen. The court pointed out that stray dog menace continued in the State, with at least one instance being reported daily. The court also remarked that children were the worst affected. The court thus directed the Additional Advocate General to sensitise officials on the need to bring in effective measures for controlling stray dog menace.

Case Title: Suo Moto Writ Petition on City Hounded on Strays v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others