Back
NHAI Urges to Clarify Stray Animal Direction, Cites
The has moved the seeking clarification of its judgment that directed the authority to formulate a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with stray animals on national highways. In its application, NHAI argues that the primary statutory responsibility for removing, impounding, and sheltering stray animals lies with state authorities, local bodies, and —not with NHAI independently. mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice, who agreed to list it before the special bench that passed the original directions.
The development comes in the proceedings titled , where the issued sweeping directions to address the menace of stray cattle and animals on the country’s highway network. Direction G of that judgment specifically requires NHAI to formulate and implement, in coordination with states and union territories, a comprehensive mechanism to address stray cattle and other animals on National Highways and National Expressways. The court also directed NHAI to deploy specialised transport vehicles, create holding and shelter facilities, enter into arrangements with animal welfare organisations and gaushalas, and establish a monitoring framework.
NHAI’s Statutory Framework and Arguments
NHAI has contended that the directions should not be interpreted as imposing an independent obligation on it to establish and operate animal shelters, gaushalas, or transport fleets across the entire national highway network. The authority relies on the , and the , to argue that its is confined to the development, maintenance, and management of national highways and traffic-related functions. It points out that the 2002 Act already provides a statutory mechanism for dealing with animals and other obstructions on highways. Section 37 of that Act prohibits allowing an animal to stand or proceed on a highway without prescribed safety control and permits the Highway Administration to remove and detain an animal causing an obstruction.
Furthermore, NHAI notes that pursuant to a Central Government notification dated , District Magistrates have been appointed as for the relevant stretches. Therefore, they are the primary field authorities under the 2002 Act for removal of obstructions and encroachments. A combined reading of the two statutes, NHAI argues, shows that the primary responsibility for physical removal, custody, and sheltering of stray animals from national highways lies with , state and local authorities, under the applicable legal framework.
Budgetary and Operational Constraints
NHAI has also submitted that establishing and operating animal shelters would require specialised infrastructure and personnel for veterinary care, fodder, sanitation, disease surveillance, and other functions that fall outside its . The national highway network administered by NHAI, , and State PWDs extends to approximately 1.46 lakh kilometres. Requiring NHAI to establish shelters across this network would involve land identification or acquisition, construction, transport arrangements, fodder supply, maintenance, and recruitment of specialised personnel. The application states that NHAI’s existing budget is intended for highway development, operation, and maintenance, as well as debt servicing, and that there is no separate budgetary head for creating and maintaining animal shelters.
The authority further points to the constitutional and statutory framework under which animal management, including sterilisation and shelter, falls within the domain of state governments and local bodies. NHAI stresses that it is not seeking dilution of the ’s . It is prepared to coordinate and facilitate removal of stray animals, identify vulnerable stretches, facilitate capture and transportation through the concerned authorities, and coordinate with states and gaushalas for shelter availability.
Clarification Sought
NHAI has accordingly sought a clarification that it would coordinate, facilitate, and, where feasible, provide contractual support to state governments, union territories, municipal and Panchayati Raj bodies, and , which would bear the primary statutory responsibility for removal, impounding, and sheltering of stray animals on national highways. It has also sought a declaration that it should not be required to independently establish, own, or operate cattle or animal shelters, holding facilities, or transport fleets across national highways, while continuing to cooperate with state authorities to implement the ’s .
The application, filed through , highlights a critical tension between the court’s desire for a comprehensive solution to a public safety hazard and the practical limitations of a statutory body whose core mandate is infrastructure development. The ’s clarification will determine how far an infrastructure authority can be stretched to fill gaps in animal welfare administration.
Legal Implications and Road Ahead
This case raises fundamental questions about the and the extent to which courts can impose new responsibilities on government agencies beyond their legislative mandates. The ’s original judgment in the stray animals matter was driven by compelling concerns over road safety, particularly the danger posed to children and other vulnerable road users. However, NHAI’s application underscores that without corresponding amendments to the governing statutes or allocation of dedicated budgets, such directions may be impractical.
The matter now awaits listing before the special bench. Legal observers note that the court may either accept NHAI’s position and clarify its role as a facilitator rather than primary executor, or it may reinforce its directions by requiring the government to amend the law to empower NHAI with the necessary resources and statutory authority. Either way, the outcome will have significant implications for how the judiciary balances its with the and the practical limitations of administrative agencies.
For the legal community, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of precise drafting in court directions and the need for careful consideration of existing statutory schemes before imposing new obligations. It also highlights the growing trend of the using its powers to address systemic public safety issues, and the subsequent pushback from implementing agencies on grounds of statutory and budgetary constraints.
Conclusion
As the prepares to hear NHAI’s clarification plea, the core issue remains: can an authority constituted for highway development be expected to take on the role of animal shelter operator? The answer will not only affect the lives of stray animals and road users but also set a precedent for how far the court can go in reshaping the administrative landscape through judicial directions. For now, the ball is in the court’s court.
