In an important development, the Meghalaya High Court has asked the Supreme Court of India to let it keep a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the stray dog menace in the state. The court said that the problem of stray dogs in Meghalaya is different from other states because of their aggressive and dangerous nature, which creates a serious risk to public safety.

This comes at a time when the Supreme Court has already ordered that similar PILs filed in different high courts across the country should be transferred to the top court for hearing.

On August 30, a division bench of the Meghalaya High Court, consisting of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, made this observation while passing an order. The court clearly said, "Although many issues may be common between petitions concerning stray dogs in other high courts and in the Supreme Court, we feel that it is our duty to point out that in this state there is peculiar distinctiveness in the menace posed by stray dogs. We have been specifically told that quite a number of stray dogs are bitersand very vicious in nature. In roads, streets and other public places they attack persons suddenly and at times cause grave injury. Having heard those submissions in this public interest litigation, we had, inter alia, directed those dogs to be taken hold of by the public authorities, inoculated, vaccinated, medically attended to and then kept in shelters for observation before setting them free. With dogs of this nature, freeing them without satisfaction that they have ceased to be biting dogs and allowing them to frequent public places would pose grave danger to the public."

The High Court also directed the Registrar General to make a formal application to the Supreme Court. The bench added, "In those circumstances, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to make a formal application before the Supreme Court on the basis of this order and seek appropriate directions with regard to retention of this public interest litigation in this court. We strongly recommend that a public interest litigation of this character and nature be retained in this court because of its peculiar and distinctive feature."

The matter will now depend on how the Supreme Court responds to this request.

You might also be interested in: 'Dowry deaths are murders': Who really should be blamed—parents or in-laws?