Stray dogs in Meghalaya must first be captured, vaccinated, and medically treated before being released into public spaces, the High Court ruled, stressing public safety, humane treatment, and strict compliance with judicial directions on managing aggressive or biter dogs.
The Meghalaya High Court ruled that stray dogs in the state must first be captured, vaccinated, inoculated, and medically treated before they can be released into public areas.
The court emphasized that freeing aggressive dogs without these precautions could pose a risk to citizens. It noted that the stray dog issue in Meghalaya has unique and specific characteristics that set it apart from similar challenges in other regions of the country.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh was reviewing a public interest litigation regarding frequent stray dog attacks in Shillong and surrounding districts.
Also Read: BREAKING | Stray Dogs To Be Sterilised, Released: Supreme Court; Big Win For Dog Lovers
During the proceedings, the Advocate General referenced a Supreme Court ruling in City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1792, which mandated that writ petitions concerning stray dog issues pending in High Courts be transferred to the Supreme Court for collective consideration.
Paragraph 36 of that judgment specifically required all High Court registries to forward such cases to the Supreme Court.
However, the Meghalaya High Court noted that while there were commonalities in the issues, the circumstances in the state were exceptional.
The bench highlighted that a significant portion of the stray dogs in Meghalaya were “biter dogs,” known for their aggression and frequent attacks on unsuspecting individuals in public spaces.
Unlike other states, where the problem primarily involved population control and nuisance, the threat in Meghalaya was described as more immediate and hazardous.
The petitioner, Kaustav Paul, raised concerns about attacks on children, the elderly, and even motorists, arguing that the uncontrolled growth of stray dogs had become a serious public safety concern.
The High Court had previously ordered state authorities to capture aggressive dogs, ensure they were vaccinated and inoculated, and keep them in shelters for observation before any potential release.
Also Read: Justice Vikram Nath: Thankful to the Stray Dogs Case for Making Me Known Globally
This process was deemed crucial not only for public safety but also for the humane treatment of the animals involved.
In its latest ruling, the court reiterated that releasing aggressive dogs without proof that they no longer posed a danger would be a significant risk to the public.
Highlighting the dangers associated with premature release, The bench stated,
“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 Advocate General indicated that, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, the High Court’s registry was required to transfer the case.
However, the bench argued that automatic transfer would remove essential judicial oversight tailored to the state’s unique conditions. The court recognized that while the Supreme Court was correctly pursuing a centralized approach to address common stray dog management issues nationwide, a one-size-fits-all solution could not be applied to Meghalaya due to the aggressive nature of the dogs involved.
Consequently, the bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to formally apply to the Supreme Court for clarification and permission to retain the case. It strongly advocated for the PIL to remain in the High Court, emphasizing that the peculiar threat posed by aggressive stray dogs in Meghalaya warranted localized adjudication.
This order highlights the judiciary’s attempt to balance centralized resolution by the Supreme Court with localized solutions that are responsive to specific threats. By prioritizing vaccination, inoculation, and observation before any release, the court has placed both public safety and humane treatment at the forefront of its approach.
The matter is scheduled for further review on October 15, 2025, when the High Court is expected to consider a report from the Registrar General regarding the steps taken before the Supreme Court.
Earlier order of August 11, passed by a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had created huge controversy. That order had directed that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR must be caught and sent to shelters within eight weeks.
The Court at that time had taken serious note of the rising number of dog bite cases and rabies-related deaths. In fact, official figures from 2024 showed at least 37 lakh dog bite cases and 54 suspected deaths due to rabies.
The apex court, On Aug 22, changed its earlier order of August 11 that had directed authorities to round up all stray dogs in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) and to keep them permanently in shelters without release.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria ruled that stray dogs should be sent back to their original locations after proper medical care.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
Case Title: Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
