​The High Court has issued a stern warning to civic authorities across the state, cautioning that it will initiate contempt proceedings if its mandatory directions concerning the stray dog and stray cattle menace are not complied with before the next hearing.

During Tuesday’s hearing of a suo motu writ petition registered pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court, an advocate raised concerns over an affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Department of Panchayats, which stated that 492 dogs had been “relocated”. The court and the amicus curiae questioned the authorities about where the animals had been moved, particularly in view of the absence of designated shelter homes across the municipalities.

Counsel for the authorities submitted that although institutional campuses must be cleared of stray dogs, the animals could be shifted beyond the campus limits to other parts of the locality.

The High Court rejected the vague submissions, emphasising that the animals could not simply “vanish into thin air”. It noted that the objective of the petition was not indiscriminate relocation, but the tracking, identification and systematic sterilisation of stray dogs to control their population.

The court directed the authorities to provide specific details about the whereabouts of the 492 dogs and their sterilisation status.

The High Court further pulled up municipal and panchayat authorities for their failure to comply with its orders. The court expressed serious dissatisfaction over the widespread administrative apathy and lack of compliance by local self-government bodies.

The High Court noted that the secretaries of village panchayats, the chief officers and commissioners of 12 municipal councils, and the commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji had displayed clear remissness in performing their duties.

The court reiterated its directions issued in September 2026, requiring local bodies to conduct door-to-door campaigns to promote large-scale sterilisation of pet dogs and raise public awareness about regular vaccination, deworming, waste management, responsible feeding and the adoption of stray animals. The authorities were also directed to compile ward-wise data on stray cattle.

Observing that no substantial compliance had been reported despite clear deadlines, the High Court directed all concerned officials to place comprehensive action-taken reports and the compiled data on record before the next hearing.

The court observed: “We make it clear that if these directions are not complied with and followed by the next date of hearing, we would have no option but to initiate contempt proceedings against each of these secretaries and commissioners who have refused to comply with the directions or have been remiss in discharging their duties.”


The court also noted the non-compliance with its earlier direction to construct temporary shelters within three weeks of the previous order, a deadline that has already expired.
Directing chief executive officers and local authorities to treat its directions with the utmost seriousness, the High Court scheduled the matter for further hearing later this month to examine the fresh compliance reports.