Telangana High Court Transfers PIL on Mass Dog Killings to Supreme Court for Joint Hearing
The Telangana High Court in Hyderabad has taken a significant step in a controversial animal welfare case by transferring a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the alleged mass killing of 40 community dogs to the Supreme Court of India. The court directed that this petition be heard alongside similar matters already pending before the apex court, creating a consolidated approach to addressing stray dog management issues nationwide.
Petition Seeks Criminal Case and Court-Monitored Investigation
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin issued this directive while hearing the PIL filed by advocate V Rishihas Reddy. The petitioner has made serious allegations against multiple authorities, including the Tahsildar of Nandigama Mandal in Rangareddy district, the Sarpanch of Modallaguda Gram Panchayat, and officials of Symbiosis International University.
The petition specifically requests the court to order police registration of a criminal case and establish a court-monitored investigation into what has been described as the systematic trapping and killing of dogs both inside and outside the university premises on Hyderabad's outskirts. According to the petitioner's claims, these actions were coordinated between local administrative authorities and university officials.
Legal Arguments and Evidentiary Challenges
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel made a crucial distinction between this case and general stray dog management issues. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's November 2025 order addressing the stray dog menace, the counsel argued that the present matter goes beyond typical dog bite concerns to involve what they termed "illegal killing of dogs."
The legal team sought immediate interim protection measures to prevent any further killings and ensure strict compliance with both the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023 and existing Supreme Court directives regarding stray dog management, particularly within institutional areas like university campuses.
When the bench raised questions about the evidentiary basis for the allegations, noting that much of the supporting material appeared to originate from social media posts, the petitioner's counsel provided additional context. They informed the court that university students and staff members had personally reported the dog deaths, and that gram panchayat officials had subsequently confirmed these incidents.
Counsel's Emotional Plea and Broader Demands
The petitioner's counsel delivered an impassioned argument before the bench, stating, "There is a clear air of suspicion and something grossly horrible has happened here. The university along with the officials have to come clean about that." This statement underscored the gravity of the allegations and the perceived need for transparency from all involved parties.
Beyond seeking immediate registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and court-supervised investigation, the petitioner made additional requests for comprehensive accountability measures. These included:
- Appointment of an independent inquiry commission headed by a retired High Court judge
- Thorough investigation into the complete chain of events leading to the deaths of all 40 dogs
- Examination of broader systemic failures in implementing animal welfare legislation across the state
Court's Rationale for Transfer to Supreme Court
After carefully recording all submissions, the division bench delivered its reasoning for transferring the case to the Supreme Court. While acknowledging the petitioner's attempt to distinguish this matter from those already before the apex court, the judges concluded that the fundamental issues raised in the PIL fell squarely within what they described as "common issues relating to stray dogs" already under Supreme Court consideration.
The bench formally directed the Registry to transfer the PIL to the Supreme Court for what is legally termed an "analogous hearing" - a procedure where similar cases are heard together to ensure consistency in judicial interpretation and application of relevant laws. This decision reflects the court's view that the matter involves broader legal principles extending beyond the specific incident at Symbiosis International University.
This transfer represents a significant development in animal welfare litigation in India, potentially setting important precedents for how courts handle cases involving alleged cruelty to animals and the responsibilities of institutional authorities in managing community animal populations. The Supreme Court's eventual hearing of this matter alongside related petitions will likely establish crucial guidelines for animal protection enforcement across the country.
