The Supreme Court on Thursday proposed that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) ask its road construction concessionaires to set up gaushalas (cowsheds) every 50 kilometres as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) to tackle the menace of stray animals on highways.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria also suggested the development of a mobile application to allow citizens to report stray animal sightings on national highways. The court is hearing a batch of petitions seeking modification of its earlier directions on the management of stray dogs and cattle.
The bench reserved its verdict in the matter but expressed strong dissatisfaction with the compliance by states like Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu.
Criticising Punjab’s sterilisation drive, which handles about 100 stray dogs a day, the court remarked, “This is no use. It is a needle in a haystack.” It warned that without urgent steps, the stray dog population would rise by 10–15% each year, compounding the problem.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing Rajasthan, informed the bench that sterilisation centres had been set up and fencing around educational institutions was completed. However, the court pointed out that only 45 vans were available to catch stray dogs across the state.
“Twenty vans may be needed just for Jaipur. You need to ramp up facilities and increase the number of vehicles for different cities,” Justice Mehta said. Bhati responded that the state had requested additional budgetary allocations to meet the requirements.
The NHAI’s counsel informed the court that over 1300 spots on national highways were vulnerable due to stray cattle and that while most states had taken action, states like Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan were yet to respond fully.
Taking note of this, the bench suggested that concessionaires managing the highways be made responsible for setting up gaushalas to house stray cattle under CSR obligations. The NHAI counsel agreed to explore this possibility.
The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), represented by its counsel, told the court that over 250 applications had been filed by NGOs for sterilisation centres and animal shelters since the Supreme Court’s November 7 order. However, these applications had not been processed yet.
Justice Nath urged the AWBI to act swiftly: “Our only request to the AWBI is whatever applications are pending, you should process them expeditiously. Either you accept it or reject them, but take a decision.”
The counsel also flagged discrepancies in sterilisation data submitted by certain states, with some reporting higher sterilisation figures than their actual dog populations.
The Supreme Court’s directions stem from a suo motu case initiated in July 2025, following media reports of rising rabies cases and dog attacks—especially on children—in Delhi. In its November 7 order, the court had directed:
- Immediate removal of stray dogs from public spaces after sterilisation and vaccination;
- Prohibition on releasing the animals back to their original locations;
- Clearance of all cattle and stray animals from highways and expressways;
- Strict enforcement of sterilisation rules under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
On January 13, the bench had warned that states failing to implement the norms could face heavy compensation liabilities for dog bite incidents. It had also said dog feeders could be held accountable.
On Wednesday, the bench remarked that states were “building castles in the air” by promising but not delivering action on stray dog management.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing as amicus curiae, summarised the current status of compliance by states like Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh and highlighted the deficiencies.
The court has now asked all parties to file their written submissions. A verdict is expected soon on the modification of the November 7 order.
