IHC Stray Dog and Rabies Prevention Ruling: Contempt Petition Filed Over Alleged Non-Compliance

By Altamush Saeed

Court admits contempt petition against authorities over alleged failure to implement landmark ban on indiscriminate culling

ISLAMABAD — A landmark Islamabad High Court judgment banning the indiscriminate killing of stray dogs in the federal capital has entered a new legal phase, with a contempt petition filed on 4 September 2026 alleging that government authorities have failed to comply with the Court’s binding directions.

The Islamabad High Court has admitted the petition and issued notices to the respondents and alleged contemnors, requiring them to explain their position before the Court.

The contempt petition is being argued by Advocate Altamush Saeed, animal law expert and Founding Managing Partner of Environmental and Animal Rights Consultants Pakistan. Saeed also represented petitioner Nelofar in the original constitutional proceedings that culminated in the Court’s landmark judgment dated 28 April 2026.

The proceedings arise from Nelofar v. Chief Commissioner, ICT (W.P. No. 2165 of 2025), a case that placed the treatment of stray dogs, rabies prevention and the State’s obligations towards humane animal population management squarely before the Islamabad High Court.

“A court judgment cannot remain on paper”

Commenting on the contempt proceedings, Advocate Altamush Saeed said the issue before the Court was now one of implementation and accountability.

“The Islamabad High Court has already settled the law: indiscriminate culling is illegal and stray dog population management must be humane, scientific and transparent. A judgment of the High Court is not a recommendation—it is binding law. If the State continues to act contrary to the directions of the Court, the issue becomes one of compliance and accountability. We are before the Court to ensure that this landmark judgment is implemented, not merely acknowledged on paper.”

Landmark judgment outlawed indiscriminate killing

In its 28 April judgment, the Islamabad High Court imposed a comprehensive prohibition on the poisoning, shooting and indiscriminate killing of stray dogs in Islamabad.

The Court held that euthanasia could only be carried out where a qualified veterinarian certifies in writing that an animal is rabid, incurably diseased or dangerously aggressive.

In place of mass killing, the Court directed the authorities to implement a comprehensive Trap, Neuter, Vaccinate and Release (TNVR) programme across residential, commercial and public spaces.

The judgment also required authorities to maintain detailed records of every dog captured, vaccinated, sterilised, rehomed or euthanised, supported by veterinary documentation and details of the relevant dates and locations.

These directions represented a significant shift from reactive killing towards a structured system of population management, vaccination and disease prevention.

Dead dogs inside CDA vehicle became key evidence

The original proceedings were triggered, in part, by serious allegations regarding the treatment of stray dogs by government authorities.

Photographic evidence placed before the Court by Advocate Altamush Saeed prima facie depicted dead dogs lying inside a vehicle attributed to the Capital Development Authority (CDA).

The petition alleged arbitrary killing, improper capture and relocation of stray dogs in violation of the ICT Stray Dog Population Control Policy, notified on 28 December 2020.

The Court also scrutinised claims made by the authorities regarding TNVR operations, including an asserted expenditure of approximately Rs.19,000 per dog. The proceedings raised questions regarding the supporting documentation, audit trail and verifiable data underlying those claims.

Court ordered a complete shift in policy

The significance of the April judgment extended beyond the prohibition of culling. The Court laid down an institutional framework for the humane management of the stray dog population.

The authorities were directed to conduct an area-wise scientific survey of Islamabad’s stray dog population and maintain transparent records of population-control operations.

The judgment also called for mechanisms for the rescue, sheltering and adoption of animals, with animal welfare organisations and NGOs to be actively engaged in implementation.

A multi-stakeholder advisory committee was contemplated, involving veterinarians, zoonotic disease experts, animal welfare organisations, environmental authorities and civil society. The framework reflected a broader One Health approach, recognising the relationship between animal welfare, rabies prevention, public health and environmental governance.

The Court further directed the establishment of a 24-hour complaint mechanism through which citizens could report aggressive or rabid animals and required anti-rabies vaccines to be made available through public health facilities.

Authorities given 60 days to comply

The respondents—including the Capital Development Authority, Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, ICT Administration, Livestock Department, Islamabad Wildlife Management Board and Environmental Protection Agency—were directed to submit compliance reports to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Islamabad High Court within 60 days.

The newly filed contempt petition alleges that the authorities have failed to implement the judgment in its true letter and spirit.

With the petition now admitted and notices issued, the respondents will have to explain before the High Court whether, and to what extent, they have complied with the directions issued in April.

The contempt proceedings could therefore become a significant test of whether a landmark judicial declaration concerning animal welfare, rabies prevention, public health and humane governance can translate into actual administrative practice.

The central question is no longer simply whether indiscriminate killing is lawful. The Islamabad High Court has already answered that question.

The question now is whether the State will comply with that ruling—and implement the humane, scientific and transparent system of animal population management that the Court ordered in its place.