Telangana HC Orders Removal of Stray Dogs to Designated Shelters
The court directed strict compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and the binding directions of the November 7 judgment of the Supreme Court: Reports
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday issued a set of directions for the removal of stray dogs from public institutional areas to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. The court directed strict compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, and the binding directions of the November 7 judgment of the Supreme Court.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy issued the directions in a writ petition filed by the Association for Animal Shelter and Rescue Aid (AASRA), represented by its president Gowri Vandana, seeking judicial intervention against the continued capture and removal of community dogs in Hyderabad in alleged violation of statutory rules and the apex court’s directives.
The petitioners contended that despite their issuing detailed representations on November 12 and 18, the authorities, particularly the GHMC, had failed to act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s sequential directions under Clauses 25(A) to 25(C).
They said the Supreme Court clearly ordered “forthwith” removal of stray dogs from public institutional areas, their relocation to designated shelters after sterilisation, deworming and vaccination, and release in the same locality on the condition that they were not infected with rabies nor showed aggressive behaviour.
The Supreme Court had also made it clear that authorities must ensure that dog shelters have sufficient personnel to manage the sterilisation, deworming, and immunisation of the dogs, the petitioners contended.
The petitioner objected to the non-compliance of the directions and sought directions for securing physical boundaries at listed premises, appointment of nodal officers, establishment of designated long-term shelters distinct from ABC units, maintenance of real-time records of all captured dogs, creation of a public helpline and online tracking database, recognition of visitation rights for caretakers, and disciplinary action against erring officials and contractors.
During the hearing, senior advocate L. Ravichander, on behalf of advocate-on-record Sree Ramya, presented arguments with a detailed note and a compliance checklist intended to guide authorities in implementing the Supreme Court’s directions in letter and spirit.
After considering the submissions, Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that the Supreme Court’s directions must be implemented sequentially and without dilution. He emphasised that the order was facilitative and did not curtail the operation of the apex court’s mandates.
The judge recorded the checklist on institutions, infrastructure, and capacity placed before it and permitted the petitioner to inspect two additional ABC centres with mobile phones, ensuring that no inconvenience was caused during such inspections.
The court directed the Chief Veterinary Officer to remain present, either physically or virtually, at the next hearing. The matter was adjourned for further consideration after two weeks to demonstrate substantial progress toward full compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
Apex court order
Supreme Court detail the actions that need to be taken with regard to strays in public institutional areas
Direction 25 (A): "Forthwith" removal of stray dogs from public institutional areas like schools, hospitals, bus stands, and railway stations.
Direction 25 (B): Relocation of the dogs to designated shelters after sterilisation, deworming, and vaccination.
Direction 25 (C): Release back to the same locality is permissible only if the dog is not infected with rabies or showing aggressive behaviour, and has been sterilised and immunised.
