The Bombay High Court at Goa has issued a stern warning to civic authorities across the state, signaling that it may initiate contempt proceedings due to persistent failures in complying with court-ordered directives concerning stray animal management. A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar expressed deep dissatisfaction with the lack of progress on critical data collection efforts and the failure to establish temporary animal shelters, as mandated by the court’s previous orders.

The court’s order, issued on October 6, 2026, underscored the administrative negligence displayed by various local bodies, including Panchayat Secretaries, Municipal Council Chief Officers, and the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP). These authorities were directed to compile comprehensive data regarding stray dogs, domesticated pets, and stray cattle, and to submit this information to the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services. Despite clear timelines previously established, the court observed that these instructions had been largely ignored.

Unmet Deadlines and Administrative Negligence

A primary point of contention for the bench was the conduct of the Chief Officer of the Quepem Municipal Council , who had failed to file an affidavit despite repeated court instructions. In its order, the bench noted, "We seriously deprecate this conduct of the Chief Officer, and expect the affidavit to be filed within a week from today." The court mandated that this submission must include a detailed explanation for the ongoing delays.

The urgency of the court's intervention stems from the broader legal context established by the Supreme Court of India in its suo motu proceedings concerning the menace of stray dogs. The Bombay High Court emphasized that its directives are not mere procedural requirements but are essential steps in fulfilling national obligations regarding public safety and animal welfare. The court’s latest observations highlight a recurring pattern of non-compliance among local bodies that are tasked with the practical implementation of these welfare schemes.

Regarding the animal rescue shelter of the CCP at Curca, the court was informed that the Town Planner for Tiswadi has conducted a site inspection. A decision on the viability and status of this site is expected to be communicated to the CCP by October 15, 2026. While this provides a small window of progress, the broader failure across other local bodies remains a significant concern for the judiciary.

Compliance Requirements for Stray and Domesticated Animals

The court reiterated that the data collection exercise is not limited to mere headcount of stray animals. It explicitly mandated that the information provided must offer a granular view of the situation at the ward level. As per the earlier directions, the compiled data must detail the gender of the stray dogs and their sterilization status. This information is critical for the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services to formulate effective state-wide vaccination and population control programs.

Regarding domesticated or pet dogs, the court noted that local bodies have failed to provide any ward-wise data, nor have they demonstrated evidence of proactive community engagement. The judiciary had previously directed local bodies to undertake door-to-door campaigns to promote sterilization and raise awareness about essential services such as vaccination, immunization, and responsible waste management. The lack of material placed on record to support these activities indicates a significant gap between administrative policy and ground-level execution.

"The data should also include the gender and whether the dogs have been sterilised or not," the bench reiterated, emphasizing that such exercises must be completed by October 15, 2026 , with the final compilation forwarded to the relevant departmental authorities by October 22, 2026 . The court has made it clear that these deadlines are final and that any further failure to provide these reports will be viewed as a deliberate defiance of judicial authority .

Legal Consequences and Impending Hearing

The court has adopted an uncompromising stance regarding the potential for contempt action. By linking these directions to the wider, ongoing suo motu petition regarding the regulation of stray animals, the bench has signaled that the accountability of local authorities is paramount.

"We make it clear that if these directions are not complied with or followed by the next date of hearing, we would have no option but to proceed to take contempt proceedings against each of these Panchayat Secretaries /Chief Officers of Municipal Councils/Commissioner of the CCP who have indulged in refusal to comply with the direction or remiss with their duties," the court stated.

Beyond the data collection requirements, the issue of temporary shelters remains a flashpoint. Local bodies were ordered to identify existing shelter spaces or set up temporary facilities within three weeks of the September 10, 2026, order. Given that the deadline of October 3, 2026, has already lapsed without significant reported action, the court has demanded that these facilities be established or identified on a "war footing."

The matter is now scheduled for a further hearing on October 26, 2026. The authorities have been explicitly ordered to ensure that all reports, including the compilation of stray cattle data and action-taken reports on sterilization campaigns, are filed before the court by the next hearing date. The court expects these submissions to be shared not only with the registry but also with the learned Amicus Curiae, ensuring transparency and providing the petitioners and other stakeholders with the ability to verify the accuracy of the information provided. The judicial scrutiny on the state's local bodies is set to intensify, placing the focus squarely on the administrative readiness of the municipal and panchayat departments in the coming weeks.