Stray dog news: Gujarat senior advocate Asim Pandya has warned the high court’s administration to take immediate steps to remove community dogs from the campus in line with a recent Supreme Court judgment or face contempt proceedings.
In his June 4 letter addressed to the high court’s registrar general, Pandya highlighted the growing stray dog “menace” and wrote, “If no steps are taken in response to this letter I would be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings, including a proceeding for contempt of court against the persons responsible for the management of the Gujarat High Court.”
In a detailed representation addressed to the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court, Pandya, two-time president of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association claimed that more than 25 stray dogs are currently residing within the high court complex and its surrounding precincts.
The senor advocate alleged that stray dogs were frequently found not only in lawyers’ chambers but on every floor of the court complex. (Image generated using AI)
The letter invokes the Supreme Court’s May 19, 2026, judgment in In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025), in which the apex court issued a series of directions concerning stray dogs in public and institutional spaces.
Pandya said that the high court administration is duty-bound to implement those directions without delay.
Supreme Court ruling leaves no scope for dogs in public institutions: Letter
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court verdict, Pandya said the top court had categorically held that there was “no justification” for the continued presence or re-release of stray dogs in institutional premises frequented by large numbers of people.
The senior advocate also pointed out that the Supreme Court had clarified that its directions were not confined to a limited list of public places. Rather, the emphasis was on locations that witness substantial public movement, making court complexes squarely fall within the scope of the judgment.
“The emphasis of this court was not on the nomenclature of the public spaces but on their functional character, namely areas which witness substantial public movement,” the letter quoted from the judgment.
‘Dog menace haunts Gujarat High Court’
- Pandya said he had previously drawn the attention of the Gujarat High Court administration to the issue through an open letter published in November 2025 under the title, “From God’s Governance to Dogs’ Dominion! The Dog Menace Haunts High Court of Gujarat.”
- According to him, despite those concerns being raised months ago, no effective steps were taken to address the situation.
- The advocate claimed that one lawyer had been bitten by a stray dog inside the high court building a few months ago.
- He further alleged that stray dogs were frequently found not only in lawyers’ chambers but on every floor of the court complex.
- “Dogs are defecating and urinating in the lawyers’ chamber building, court corridors and near libraries. It is causing serious hygiene issues,” the letter states.
Demand for details on sterilisation, vaccination and relocation
Pandya has sought information regarding the number of stray dogs residing within the high court campus and whether they have ever been captured, dewormed, sterilised or re-released.
He requested the registrar general to direct the campus administration to coordinate with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and provide details regarding the status of the animals and measures taken to control their presence.
The letter argues that the presence of stray dogs poses a serious threat to people attending the high court and that the issue can no longer be ignored following the Supreme Court‘s latest ruling.
Feeding of dogs near court buildings should stop, says advocate
Pandya has also called for a temporary ban on feeding stray dogs inside court buildings and near lawyers’ chambers until the animals are removed from the premises.
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court recognised the rights of animal lovers to care for and feed stray animals, he noted that the judgment simultaneously imposed liability on feeders for injuries caused by animals they support.
He requested the high court administration to designate a separate feeding zone away from court buildings in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and obtain undertakings from lawyers or staff members who wish to feed dogs in such areas.
According to the letter, any such arrangement should be viewed only as a temporary measure until the campus is made free of stray dogs.
Call for suo motu proceedings
Pandya urged the Gujarat High Court to register a suo motu case titled “In Re: Compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025″ to ensure implementation of the apex court’s directives.
He argued that the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the institution, was constitutionally obligated to comply with the law declared by the Supreme Court under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.
Contempt proceedings warning
The letter concludes with a warning that if no action is taken, Pandya would be compelled to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including contempt proceedings against those responsible for managing the Gujarat High Court premises.
Copies of the representation have also been marked to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Animal Welfare Board of India.
4.8 lakh dog bites, 42 deaths: Citing 2026 surge, Supreme Court orders removal of stray dogs from public institutions
On May 19, the Supreme Court highlighted the cases of dog bites and dog bite-related deaths from different states. Referring to news reports, the bench particularly underscored the incidents in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Rajasthan, totalling 4.8 lakh cases of dog bites and 42 deaths.
The bench cautioned that unchecked presence of stray dogs in public and institutional spaces has become a direct threat to citizens’ right to life and safety under Article 21.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria on May 19 examined mounting reports of attacks in schools, hospitals, transport hubs and public spaces, defending its earlier November 7, 2025, directions ordering the removal of stray dogs from institutional premises and prohibiting their re-release into the same locations.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of rapidly escalating dog bite numbers across the country in 2026, with states reporting lakhs of bite cases and dozens of rabies-linked deaths within just months.
Staggering problem
Referring to the data cited in the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that if viewed cumulatively, the figures “reveal the staggering dimensions of the problem” while underscoring “the pressing necessity for immediate, sustained and effective intervention”.
“The harm caused by such incidents is not merely statistical in nature, but has grave human, societal and public health consequences, the extent whereof is both enormous and, in many cases, unfathomable,” the Supreme Court verdict stated.
Court cites “affirmative obligation” of state
- The judgment strongly framed the issue as one involving constitutional governance rather than merely animal management.
- “The State and its instrumentalities bear an affirmative obligation to ensure that no citizen, least of all children, elderly people and patients, are exposed to preventable injury or disease within public premises,” the Supreme Court observed.
- It directed states and Union Territories to identify all educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus depots and railway stations within two weeks and ensure that such premises are secured through fencing, gates and other protective measures.
- The apex court further ordered that every stray dog found within such premises be removed, sterilised and vaccinated, and shifted to designated shelters without being reintroduced into the same institutional areas.
- Hospitals were directed to maintain mandatory stocks of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin, while schools were asked to conduct awareness sessions on preventive behaviour and first aid after dog bites.
Senior Advocate Pandya alleged that the stray dogs freely roam court buildings, lawyers' chambers and corridors, creating safety concerns for advocates, litigants and visitors in the Gujarat High Court campus. (Image generated using AI) 
The senor advocate alleged that stray dogs were frequently found not only in lawyers’ chambers but on every floor of the court complex. (Image generated using AI)
Share
