Stray dog pack rules over the halls of justice in Madras HC
Earlier, the Supreme Court, addressing stray dog concerns, had directed the removal of canines from public spaces like hospitals, schools, and bus stands
Madras High Court
CHENNAI: With 52 court halls, 55 judges, and a daily footfall exceeding 6,000 including advocates, litigants, and staff, the Madras High Court is now home to an unusual and growing contingent: a pack of over 30 street dogs.
Their presence, turning from occasional nuisance to persistent crisis, has created a stark contrast between a recent Supreme Court mandate and on-ground reality, raising alarms over hygiene, safety, and institutional oversight.
Earlier, the Supreme Court, addressing stray dog concerns, had directed the removal of canines from public spaces like hospitals, schools, and bus stands. It ordered proper fencing around government complexes and mandated that removed dogs be vaccinated, sterilised, and sheltered.
Yet, within the secured perimeter of a premier judicial institution, these directives seem distant. The problems are multifold.
Advocates, often rushing between courtrooms, navigate pathways soiled by dog excrement. The benches meant for lawyers to review case files are frequently occupied by sleeping dogs, forcing professionals to stand. This unhygienic and inconvenient environment has become a daily grievance.
More critically, the Supreme Court’s specific health order is being largely ignored. Only a handful of the court’s canine residents are vaccinated. The majority roam unvaccinated and unsterilised, elevating fears of rabies transmission. This unchecked situation poses a latent threat to everyone within the campus—judges, lawyers, staff, and the public.
The persistent influx has sparked a fundamental question: how are dogs entering in the first place? As a high-security government establishment, the breach reveals lapses in access control and preventive measures.
Frustrated advocates and staff are now demanding answers and action. They urge authorities to immediately identify and seal entry points, while also ensuring the existing dogs are rounded up, vaccinated, sterilised, and cared for in accordance with the apex court’s guidelines.
The scene at the HC presents a curious paradox: an institution dedicated to interpreting and upholding the law finds itself struggling to comply with one. As the canines lounge in the shadow of the court’s grand facade, they embody a challenge that is as much about administrative execution as it is about balancing civic order with animal welfare. The hallways of justice now await a verdict on this pressing, four-legged dilemma.
