February 18, 2025
By Xari Jalil
LAHORE
In the detailed verdict released on February 17, and its first major ruling for the implementation of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Policy 2021, the Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench, presided over the Justice Jawad Hasan has issued a detailed verdict mandating strict adherence to humane protocols for stray dog management. The directions are given to the Punjab government and local authorities.
It is a landmark decision concerning the treatment of stray dogs and calls for the implementation of the 2021 law which acknowledges the humane reduction of the dog population as the scientific standard in order to ensure long term human safety from rabies and dog bites.
The legislation was formulated following the case of Hamza Khan v Government of Punjab ICA 277/2017.
After the court ruling it was announced by the petitioners’ lawyers that any dog culling in Rawalpindi, would be a direct contempt of court.
Petitioners’ core argument
The case, argued by Advocates Altamash Saeed and Ahmed Shoaib Atta, was brought under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), challenging the mass culling of stray dogs in Rawalpindi as a violation of both the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1890) and the Punjab Animal Health Act (2019).
The petitioners filed the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, arguing that the ongoing dog culling operation in Rawalpindi is cruel, indiscriminate (killing both healthy and unhealthy dogs), and violates Section 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890. They also challenged the legality of the tender issued for the culling, deeming it unconstitutional and against Islamic principles.
Both petitioners, particularly Petitioner No. 1, claimed to have witnessed the cruel culling practices (shooting and poisoning) and that their complaints to authorities were met with the justification that it was being done in response to public complaints about dog bites. They pointed to the tender issued by Chief Officer, District Council, Rawalpindi, as evidence that the policy was focused on killing, not alternative solutions.
The petitioners argued that the government has a responsibility under Section 16(c) of the Punjab Animal Health Act, 2019, to prevent cruelty to animals. They cited Section 5 of the 1890 Act, which penalizes killing animals with unnecessary cruelty. They also argued that they have legal standing to file the petition as a public interest litigation, citing precedents where citizens were allowed to raise issues of public interest, including fundamental rights.
Currently, the preferred method for killing stray dogs in Pakistan, is either by shooting the dogs with guns or by leaving out meat laced with poison including with the chemical strychnine, which has in the past been procured specifically for killing dogs.
Government’s Defense
The respondents (government and related authorities) argued that they were implementing the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Policy, 2021, in response to public complaints about dog bites, including complaints made through the Prime Minister’s and Chief Minister’s portals. They cited a previous court order (Intra court ruling ICA No. 277 of 2017, Hamza Khan Vs. Province of Punjab, etc.) that directed the implementation of the policy. They emphasized that the policy acknowledges the problems posed by stray dogs and aims to address them through various means, including euthanasia under specific conditions. They stated they are following Clauses 8 and 9 of the Policy regarding humane euthanasia and carcass disposal.
However the petitioners countered that the government should focus on providing food for stray dogs to reduce biting incidents, rather than resorting to killing them. They conceded to the disposal of the petition in light of the previous court order (ICA No. 277 of 2017).
Meanwhile the court acknowledged the existence of the policy and its stated objectives. It however stated that it could not interfere with government policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional.
Justice Jawad Hassan clarified that while courts generally avoid intervening in policy matters unless they are unconstitutional, unreasonable, or illegal, the protection of animal rights is paramount, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Policy 2021 must be implemented fully.
Relying on precedent, the court emphasized that it would not question the ‘wisdom of a policy’. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to strictly adhere to Clauses 8 and 9 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Policy, 2021, regarding humane euthanasia (for incurably ill or mortally wounded dogs only, under veterinary supervision, and without the presence of other dogs) and proper disposal of carcasses. The court essentially reiterated the conditions for euthanasia outlined in the existing policy.
Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs, as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian appointed by the Tehsil Implementation Committee, shall be euthanized during specified hours in a humane manner by administering sodium pentathol for adult dogs and Thiopental Intraperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthanized in any other humane manner approved by the PMC. No dog shall be euthanized in the presence of another dog.
The person responsible for euthanizing must ensure that the animal is dead, before disposal. The carcasses of such euthanized dogs shall be disposed of through burial.
Connection with human rights
The verdict is a major breakthrough judgment for Protection of dogs in Punjab. Counsels of the petitioners expressed hope that rights for all animals in Pakistan would soon be better implemented.
while the connection between human rights and animal rights is complex, by focusing on humane treatment and policy implementation, the court ruling touches on several areas where animal welfare intersects with broader human rights principles.
Indiscriminate dog culling reflects broader human rights principles, where a society that tolerates cruelty to animals is often seen as more likely to tolerate cruelty to humans.
Besides this, a healthy environment is essential to animal welfare, which if not followed can have negative ecological consequences.
The court’s acceptance of the petition as a public interest litigation (PIL) is itself a human rights issue. PIL allows citizens to raise concerns about matters of public importance, even if they are not directly affected as individuals. This expands access to justice and allows for the protection of rights that might otherwise go unaddressed, including environmental rights and potentially even aspects of animal rights. Even if the policy itself isn’t perfect, the court’s stance reinforces the principle that government actions must be in accordance with established laws and policies. This is a fundamental aspect of human rights and good governance.
Advocate Altamash Saeed hailed the verdict as a milestone, establishing the illegality of mass dog killings and advocating for humane alternatives. Advocate Ahmed Shoaib Atta emphasized the need for sterilization and vaccination programs. The case arose after reports of mass dog killings in Rawalpindi prompted the petitioners to argue for humane solutions like vaccination, sterilization, and community care.
Animal rights activists are now calling for immediate implementation of the 2021 policy, including independent monitoring, local implementation committees, large-scale sterilization and vaccination initiatives, and public awareness campaigns.