Remove stray dogs or face contempt, senior lawyer warns Gujarat High Court administration

Stray dog news: Gujarat senior advocate Asim Pandya has warned the high court’s administration to take immediate steps to remove community dogs from the campus in line with a recent Supreme Court judgment or face contempt proceedings.

In his June 4 letter addressed to the high court’s registrar general, Pandya highlighted the growing stray dog “menace” and wrote, “If no steps are taken in response to this letter I would be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings, including a proceeding for contempt of court against the persons responsible for the management of the Gujarat High Court.”

In a detailed representation addressed to the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court, Pandya, two-time president of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association claimed that more than 25 stray dogs are currently residing within the high court complex and its surrounding precincts.

Senior Advocate Asim Pandya alleged that the stray dogs freely roam court buildings, lawyers’ chambers and corridors, creating safety concerns for advocates, litigants and visitors. (Image enhanced using AI)

The letter invokes the Supreme Court’s May 19, 2026, judgment in In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025), in which the apex court issued a series of directions concerning stray dogs in public and institutional spaces.

Pandya said that the high court administration is duty-bound to implement those directions without delay.

Supreme Court ruling leaves no scope for dogs in public institutions: Letter

Referring extensively to the Supreme Court verdict, Pandya said the top court had categorically held that there was “no justification” for the continued presence or re-release of stray dogs in institutional premises frequented by large numbers of people.

The senior advocate also pointed out that the Supreme Court had clarified that its directions were not confined to a limited list of public places. Rather, the emphasis was on locations that witness substantial public movement, making court complexes squarely fall within the scope of the judgment.

Story continues below this ad

“The emphasis of this court was not on the nomenclature of the public spaces but on their functional character, namely areas which witness substantial public movement,” the letter quoted from the judgment.

‘Dog menace haunts Gujarat High Court’

Pandya said he had previously drawn the attention of the Gujarat High Court administration to the issue through an open letter published in November 2025 under the title, “From God’s Governance to Dogs’ Dominion! The Dog Menace Haunts High Court of Gujarat.”

According to him, despite those concerns being raised months ago, no effective steps were taken to address the situation.

The advocate claimed that one lawyer had been bitten by a stray dog inside the high court building a few months ago.

He further alleged that stray dogs were frequently found not only in lawyers’ chambers but on every floor of the court complex.

“Dogs are defecating and urinating in the lawyers’ chamber building, court corridors and near libraries. It is causing serious hygiene issues,” the letter states.

Demand for details on sterilisation, vaccination and relocation

Pandya has sought information regarding the number of stray dogs residing within the high court campus and whether they have ever been captured, dewormed, sterilised or re-released.

He requested the registrar general to direct the campus administration to coordinate with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and provide details regarding the status of the animals and measures taken to control their presence.

The letter argues that the presence of stray dogs poses a serious threat to people attending the high court and that the issue can no longer be ignored following the Supreme Court‘s latest ruling.

Story continues below this ad

Feeding of dogs near court buildings should stop, says advocate

Pandya has also called for a temporary ban on feeding stray dogs inside court buildings and near lawyers’ chambers until the animals are removed from the premises.

While acknowledging that the Supreme Court recognised the rights of animal lovers to care for and feed stray animals, he noted that the judgment simultaneously imposed liability on feeders for injuries caused by animals they support.

He requested the high court administration to designate a separate feeding zone away from court buildings in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and obtain undertakings from lawyers or staff members who wish to feed dogs in such areas.

According to the letter, any such arrangement should be viewed only as a temporary measure until the campus is made free of stray dogs.

Story continues below this ad

Call for suo motu proceedings

Pandya urged the Gujarat High Court to register a suo motu case titled “In Re: Compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025″ to ensure implementation of the apex court’s directives.

He argued that the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the institution, was constitutionally obligated to comply with the law declared by the Supreme Court under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.

Contempt proceedings warning

The letter concludes with a warning that if no action is taken, Pandya would be compelled to initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including contempt proceedings against those responsible for managing the Gujarat High Court premises.

Copies of the representation have also been marked to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Animal Welfare Board of India.