Madras High Court Pulls Up Tamil Nadu Over Continued Stray Dog Menace, Seeks Visible Action
The Madras High Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction over the Tamil Nadu government’s failure to effectively address the growing stray dog menace, observing that despite repeated judicial directions, there has been no visible improvement on the ground. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made the observations while hearing a suo motu public interest case initiated pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions on stray dog management.
During the hearing, the State government sought one week’s time to file a detailed compliance report. While permitting the request, the Bench remarked that reports on paper were insufficient if the situation remained unchanged in reality. The judges observed that incidents involving stray dogs continue to be reported almost every day, with children emerging as the worst-affected victims of dog attacks.
The Court also pointed out that the stray dog problem was not confined to public roads but had even affected the Madras High Court premises, underscoring the seriousness of the issue. It directed the Additional Advocate General to sensitise the concerned authorities and ensure that effective, time-bound measures are implemented rather than merely documenting administrative steps.
The proceedings arise from a Supreme Court order issued in May 2026 directing all High Courts to register suo motu proceedings to monitor compliance with nationwide measures for controlling stray dogs. The apex court had instructed States and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from sensitive public places such as schools, hospitals, bus stands and railway stations, strengthen sterilisation and vaccination programmes, establish Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres in every district, and ensure adequate availability of anti-rabies vaccines in government hospitals.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had directed the governments of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to submit comprehensive reports detailing the implementation of these directions. During the latest hearing, however, the Bench observed that despite these judicial mandates, there was little evidence of tangible improvement in public safety, prompting the Court to seek greater administrative accountability.
The matter has been adjourned to enable the State to file its compliance report. The High Court is expected to closely monitor whether the authorities have translated policy commitments into effective action on the ground. The case has assumed significance as it balances public safety concerns arising from increasing dog-bite incidents with the requirement that stray dog management measures remain humane and consistent with animal welfare laws and the Supreme Court’s directives.
