P&H High Court Flags Nutritional Deficiencies At Chandigarh SPCA, Directs Filing Of Affidavit And Appoints Local Commissioner To Oversee Animal Welfare
Isabella Mariam
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Alka Sarin took cognizance of a Local Commissioner's report indicating deficiencies in the functioning of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Chandigarh, including delayed payment of staff salaries and insufficient nutrition being provided to animals at the shelter. The Court noted that the daily protein intake being given to the housed dogs fell below the threshold identified by the facility's own veterinary staff. Accordingly, the Court directed the SPCA to file an affidavit outlining the measures it intends to adopt to ensure that the nutritional needs of the sheltered animals are adequately met.
The proceedings concerned issues relating to the functioning and management of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Sector 38, Chandigarh, and the condition of animals housed at the facility. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted a detailed report regarding the state of affairs at the shelter. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that certain employees of the SPCA had allegedly not been paid their salaries, which was stated to be one of the reasons for neglect in the care of animals.
Counsel representing the Union Territory administration produced orders showing that financial assistance had been sanctioned and released to the SPCA. It was submitted that funds had been released through orders dated 08.05.2025 and 13.11.2025. Counsel for the SPCA informed the Court that there had been administrative issues in disbursing salaries but stated that payment for January 2026 had been released and payment for February 2026 would be made shortly.
The petitioners also raised concerns regarding the volunteer registration process at the SPCA facility and objected to the detailed declarations required in the forms circulated for volunteers. During the proceedings, discussions were held regarding the conditions under which volunteers could assist at the shelter and their access to the premises.
Further concerns were raised regarding the feeding practices and nutritional adequacy of the diet provided to dogs housed in the facility. The petitioners submitted audited financial documents showing expenditure figures and photographs appended by the Local Commissioner depicting the condition of animals and the food provided at the shelter.
The Court recorded that the report of the Local Commissioner had been submitted and taken on record. It observed that “The Local Commissioner appointed by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2026 has handed over a detailed report today. The same is taken on record.”
The Court noted that issues relating to salary payments had been raised during the proceedings. It recorded that “some of the employees of the SPCA have not been paid their salaries and it was one of the reasons that they were not working and neglecting the animals.”
The Court also recorded the submission of counsel representing the administration regarding the release of financial assistance to the SPCA. It stated that “copies of two orders, one dated 08.05.2025 whereby sanction was accorded for release of ₹50,00,000/- as financial assistance to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Sector 38, Chandigarh; and the second order dated 13.11.2025 whereby an amount of ₹70,00,000/- was released.”
Regarding the volunteer process, the Court recorded the position taken by the SPCA. It stated that “self-declaration form would not be required to be filled in by the volunteers and they would only have to give their name, two photographs and identity proof.” It further recorded that volunteers would provide their preferred work options and undertake to follow the applicable SOPs.
The Court noted that both sides had agreed on restrictions relating to volunteer access. It recorded that “at any point of time a maximum of five volunteers would be allowed to visit the SPCA.” It further recorded that “photography and videography by the volunteers would be allowed between 02.00 pm to 03.00 pm.”
The Court also recorded the assurance regarding the functioning of surveillance systems at the facility. It stated that “CCTVs would be kept functional at all given times and the footage is being preserved for a period of one month.”
While considering the request of the petitioners for access to CCTV footage, the Court referred to earlier directions passed by the Division Bench regarding the care of animals. It recorded the earlier direction that “In the meantime, U.T. Administration is directed to ensure proper diet as well as treatment as and when necessary and availability of clean and fresh water to animals including well-ventilated accommodation.”
With respect to the feeding of animals at the shelter, the Court recorded statements made by the doctors present in Court regarding the nutritional requirement of dogs. It noted that “requirement of an average dog weighing about 20 kgs is 150 gms. of protein, which would effectively mean 4 to 5 eggs a day.” The Court further recorded the feeding practice followed at the shelter and noted that “the dogs are not even being fed two eggs each in the entire day as there are about 47 dogs as of today in the shelter.”
The Court directed: "Let an affidavit be filed by respondent No.2-SPCA stating the steps which would be taken by them to ensure that the nutritional requirement of the animals is duly met with."
“Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, who was appointed as a Local Commissioner vide order dated 10.03.2026, is given free access to the CCTV footage. She would submit a report to the Court in case she finds anything amiss in the functioning of the SPCA and/or in the upkeep of the animals and the shelter if noticed by her from the CCTV footage."
"It is made clear that the CCTV footage which is obtained by the Local Commissioner shall not be shared with the petitioners and shall not be made public or shared on any social media. List on 07.04.2026."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate; Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate with Ms. Himani Jamwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Junior Panel Counsel; Ms. Armaan Saggar, Advocate
Case Title: Shaurya Madan v. Nishant Kumar Yadav & Another; Sehjeevi Foundation Charitable Trust v. Nishant Kumar Yadav & Others
Case Number: COCP-5244-2025 (O&M); COCP-4465-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Alka Sarin
