NHAI: Supreme Court To Hear Stray Cattle Shelter Challenge

• The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has petitioned the Supreme Court to modify a directive requiring it to establish shelter homes for stray cattle nationwide.
• The NHAI argues that local administrations should bear this responsibility, estimating the project would cost approximately Rs 7,000 crore.
• The directive originated from a broader Supreme Court case concerning stray dogs, which has seen previous orders regarding euthanasia of dangerous dogs and their removal from public spaces.
• The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance in July 2025 following alarming reports of dog bites, including incidents involving children, highlighting a significant public safety issue.
• A special bench will be constituted by the Supreme Court to hear the NHAI's plea, addressing the inter-agency dispute over funding and responsibility for stray animal management.

The NHAI's challenge to the Supreme Court's directive brings to the forefront a significant debate concerning government responsibility for stray animal management and the financial burden associated with such mandates.

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has formally approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking to overturn a directive that mandates its involvement in establishing shelter homes for stray cattle across the nation. The Authority contends that the responsibility for managing and housing stray animals, including cattle, should rightfully fall upon district-level and local administrations, rather than a central infrastructure body like the NHAI.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NHAI, informed a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, that the original directive stemmed from a special bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. Mehta emphasized the impracticality of the NHAI undertaking such a vast project nationwide, estimating the potential expenditure for these shelters at approximately Rs 7,000 crore. He argued that local authorities are better positioned to handle the logistical and operational aspects of stray animal management.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the significance of the NHAI's application and has agreed to constitute a special bench specifically to hear the plea. This development underscores a critical inter-agency dispute regarding the allocation of duties and financial liabilities in public welfare initiatives, particularly concerning the NHAI Supreme Court stray cattle shelter challenge.

The directive challenged by the NHAI originated within the context of a separate, ongoing Supreme Court case primarily focused on stray dogs. This highlights the judiciary's sustained engagement with issues surrounding stray animals and public safety across India. The Supreme Court has a history of issuing comprehensive directives aimed at improving the management and welfare of stray animals, as well as mitigating risks to human life.

For instance, in May 2026, the Court issued instructions for authorities to euthanize rabid and dangerous dogs, adhering strictly to statutory protocols, to curb threats to human life. Furthermore, the Court has consistently refused to modify its earlier orders mandating the removal of stray dogs from sensitive public areas such as educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations, sports complexes, and hospitals. These Supreme Court India animal welfare directives reflect a proactive stance on a pervasive societal problem.

In July of the previous year, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a distressing report published in the Delhi edition of the `Times of India`, titled “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price.” The Court noted with alarm that hundreds of dog bites are reported daily, with an estimated 20,000 cases nationally and 2,000 incidents in Delhi alone each day, leading to severe health consequences, particularly for children and the elderly. This suo motu stray dogs case India was prompted by specific incidents, including a 6-year-old girl, Chavi Sharma, suffering multiple dog bites on her leg, arm, and palm, and a 4-year-old boy, Abhishek Rai, being attacked by a pack of dogs in Delhi’s Alipur area on July 23, 2025, despite repeated complaints from local residents.

The NHAI's challenge to the Supreme Court's directive brings to the forefront a significant debate concerning government responsibility for stray animal management and the financial burden associated with such mandates. The estimated NHAI Rs 7000 crore shelter expenditure underscores the immense scale of the problem and the potential financial strain on public bodies. This case will likely set a precedent for how responsibilities are delineated between central and local government entities when implementing court-ordered public welfare projects.

The core of the dispute revolves around whether a national highway authority, primarily tasked with road infrastructure, should divert substantial resources to animal shelters, or if this duty is more appropriately handled by local administrations with direct oversight of community-level issues. The outcome will clarify the scope of obligations for various government agencies in addressing public safety concerns arising from stray animals, a matter of increasing urgency given the alarming statistics on dog bites and the tragic incidents that prompted the Supreme Court's initial intervention. The resolution of this NHAI Supreme Court stray cattle shelter challenge will have far-reaching implications for inter-agency cooperation and funding mechanisms for animal welfare initiatives across the country.

This case clarifies the allocation of responsibility for public welfare infrastructure (stray animal shelters) between central and local government bodies, potentially setting a precedent for how court directives in public interest litigation are implemented and funded. Lawyers should monitor the outcome to understand the scope of government agency obligations and financial liabilities in animal welfare and public safety matters, particularly concerning inter-agency disputes over implementation costs.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law