Meghalaya seeks to retain stray dog case citing unique challenges

Meghalaya High Court has made a strong pitch to retain jurisdiction over a critical public interest litigation concerning stray dogs, arguing that the state faces uniquely dangerous conditions that distinguish it from similar cases across India.

The court's decision comes as the Supreme Court considers consolidating all stray dog-related petitions from various High Courts under a single umbrella case, following its recent judgment in "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price."

Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, in their August 30 order in the case filed by Kaustav Paul, emphasised that Meghalaya's stray dog problem has "peculiarly distinctiveness" compared to other states.

"We have been specifically told that quite a number of stray street dogs are biter dogs and very vicious in nature. In roads, streets and other public places, they attack persons suddenly and at times causing grave injury," the court noted in its detailed observations.

The judges highlighted their earlier directive requiring authorities to capture aggressive dogs, provide them with medical attention, including inoculation and vaccination, and house them in shelters for observation before any potential release.

However, the court expressed serious reservations about the standard approach of releasing dogs back into public spaces. "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 judgment stated.

This position puts Meghalaya at odds with typical animal welfare protocols that emphasise sterilisation and release programs for stray dogs.

The Supreme Court's recent directive requires High Court registries to identify all pending stray dog petitions for potential transfer to the apex court for "analogous consideration along with the main matter."

Recognising this challenge, the Meghalaya High Court has instructed its Registrar General to file a formal application before the Supreme Court, seeking permission to retain the case locally.

"We strongly recommend that a public interest litigation of this character and nature be retained in this Court because of its peculiar and distinctive feature," the judges emphasised.

The case has been scheduled for review on October 15, 2025, when the court will receive a report from the Registrar General regarding the Supreme Court's response to their retention request.