News Brief
Arun Dhital
Aug 13, 2025, 12:09 PM | Updated 12:09 PM IST
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (12 August) indicated it consider directing the Tamil Nadu government to adopt the Supreme Court’s recent order on managing street dogs in Delhi, the NDTV reported.
The Bench was hearing multiple petitions concerning stray animals, including cases on stray cattle, general street dog issues, and a complaint about dogs inside a temple that allegedly bit devotees, causing injuries and raising fear of rabies.
Petitioners presented data claiming that Tamil Nadu has already recorded 3.67 lakh dog bites and 20 rabies-related deaths this year.
The judges stated that they would issue combined formal orders after examining the Supreme Court’s detailed guidelines.
The prospect of applying the Delhi model has drawn sharply divided responses.
Animal welfare advocates warned that the state lacks adequate infrastructure, trained personnel, and veterinary facilities to manage its large stray dog population.
“Dogs have equal rights to live in this world,” one activist was quoted as saying by NDTV, cautioning that an unplanned crackdown could leave thousands of dogs neglected or starving. They urged strict enforcement of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, which focuses on sterilisation and vaccination as humane solutions.
Many residents and civic activists, however, welcomed the move, insisting that public safety must take precedence.
“Lives should not be lost to dog bites in this day and age,” one petitioner argued, pointing to gaps in rabies prevention and control across several districts.
The court’s nod to the Supreme Court order suggests Tamil Nadu could soon see new court-mandated protocols for stray dog management, potentially reshaping municipal responsibilities, sterilisation drives, shelter operations, and public awareness efforts.
The Bench is expected to issue final directions after reviewing the top court’s ruling.