Meghalaya High Court Expands Stray Dog Control Measures Statewide | Directs Formation Of Animal Welfare Committees In All Districts Within Four Weeks
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Division Bench of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh held that the scope of previous judicial directions for stray dog control would now extend across the entire State of Meghalaya. The Court directed the state government to form a Committee as mandated under Rule 4 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, within four weeks. It further instructed district authorities and local bodies to implement the statutory functions laid down under Rule 5 of the said Rules. The matter has been made returnable on 16th July 2025 for further compliance review.
This public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in person by a petitioner seeking urgent intervention by the High Court of Meghalaya to address the growing menace posed by stray dogs. The petitioner sought comprehensive measures from the state, including their capture, treatment, sterilisation, and rehabilitation in designated shelters.
Initially, the Court had issued orders focused exclusively on controlling the issue within the Shillong district. These included temporary sheltering solutions facilitated by coordination between the Shillong Municipal Board and the state government. The Municipal Board lacked adequate facilities for prolonged accommodation of stray animals. As a result of the Court’s earlier orders, the state government provided a temporary shelter to accommodate the animals for a limited duration.
Subsequent compliance included the Municipal Board initiating steps toward land acquisition for a permanent shelter. Upon its completion, animals temporarily housed in the state-run facility were to be relocated to the new permanent accommodation under the Municipal Board.
Despite these measures, the petitioner expressed concern over the limited territorial scope of the Court’s directives. He stated that the issue was not confined to Shillong but extended across all districts of Meghalaya. The petitioner drew attention to the lack of effective enforcement and referred to legislative provisions that, though in force, had not been implemented.
The petitioner referenced the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, promulgated under Section 38(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Specifically, Rule 4 mandates the formation of a dedicated committee comprising the Commissioner or Chief of the local authority as ex-officio Chairman, along with representatives from Public Health, Animal Welfare organizations, and a known humanitarian individual.
He submitted that this committee, once formed, is legally tasked with executing several animal welfare functions under Rule 5. These include capturing, sterilising, immunising, and rehabilitating stray dogs in shelters. The petitioner asserted that the implementation of this statutory framework was imperative and overdue. He urged the Court to expand its judicial intervention to encompass the entire state and ensure uniform enforcement of the Rules.
In support of these contentions, the petitioner argued that merely limiting the Court’s directions to the Shillong district would be ineffective in resolving the systemic nature of the problem. He stressed the necessity of a state-level framework to address stray dog-related public safety and animal welfare concerns.
In response, the state authorities acknowledged the coordination between the Municipal Board and the state government. They confirmed the extension of temporary shelter arrangements and the ongoing process of establishing a permanent shelter. However, no submissions in opposition to the petitioner’s plea for statewide applicability or implementation of the statutory rules were recorded in the judgment.
The Bench, after reviewing the submissions and past compliance measures, issued an order expanding the jurisdictional scope of its directives beyond the confines of Shillong. It instructed all district commissioners and councils to be served with copies of the PIL and court orders, ensuring uniform awareness and implementation across the state.
The Court recorded the following judicial reasoning:
“From time to time, we have passed orders to contain this menace.” The Court noted that the scope and effect of earlier directives were limited to Shillong district and stated: “The Shillong Municipal Board did not have adequate facility to keep these stray animals.” It acknowledged the state’s interim steps: “Under our order, the state provided shelter to accommodate these animals for a limited period.”
Commenting on the petitioner’s submissions, the Bench stated: “The petitioner-in-person points out that these measures by the court might not prove to be effective.” Two primary reasons were noted: “The first is that the order only covers the Shillong district. The dog menace covers the whole of Meghalaya.” Secondly, it recorded that the petitioner highlighted that the statutory rules had not been enforced: “He draws our attention to the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001… The rules have remained a piece of paper and not enforced.”
The Court recorded the petitioner’s insistence on forming the committee as mandated: “Mr. Paul points out that rule 4 provides for formation of a committee comprising of the commissioner/chief of the local authority… and ‘Humanitarian or a well-known individual’.”
Regarding the duties of the committee, it observed: “These functions include the measures we have directed to be taken in respect of these stray animals.”
Taking cognizance of the petitioner’s concerns, the Court stated: “In those circumstances, we observe and direct that the scope and ambit of this writ shall extend throughout Meghalaya.”
It elaborated on the next steps: “The commissioners of the districts and District Council shall be served copies of the writ petition along with the orders passed therein by the Advocate-on-Record for the state within a week from date.” Additionally, it specified the timeframe: “The state government shall take immediate steps not later than four weeks from date to form a Committee in terms of rule 4 of the said rules.”
On future compliance, the Bench held: “Thereafter, the committee shall discharge its functions according to rule 5.” Furthermore, it ordered that: “The commissioners along with the District Council and the local Municipal authority shall carry out our orders in their districts.”
Lastly, the Court recorded the procedural requirement: “The state shall file a comprehensive affidavit with regard to the action taken before the returnable date.”
The Court observed and directed that the scope and ambit of the writ would extend throughout Meghalaya.
It further directed that the commissioners of the districts and the District Council be served copies of the writ petition along with the orders passed therein by the Advocate-on-Record for the state within a week from the date of the order.
The Bench ordered the state government to take immediate steps, not later than four weeks from the date of the judgment, to form a Committee in terms of Rule 4 of the said rules.
Upon its formation, the Court stated that the committee would discharge its functions in accordance with Rule 5.
The commissioners, along with the District Council and the local Municipal authority, were directed to carry out the Court’s orders in their respective districts.
Additionally, the state was instructed to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing the actions taken before the returnable date. The matter was made returnable on 16th July, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Kaustav Paul
For the Respondents: Mrs. T. Yangi B., Additional Advocate General; Mr. E.R. Chyne, Government Advocate; Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Advocate
Case Title: Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Case Number: PIL No. 4/2024
Bench: Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice; Justice W. Diengdoh
[Read/Download order]
