When the Temple of Justice Isn’t Safe: From God’s Governance to Dogs’ Dominion at the Gujarat High Court

By Asim Pandya, Senior Advocate. Former President GHCAA

In the hallowed halls of the Gujarat High Court, where legal lions usually roar, a different kind of “territorial dispute” has taken center stage: the relentless stray dog menace.

The irony is as thick as a legal brief—while advocates argue for the rule of law inside, they are forced to dodge aggressive canines outside, with incidents of lawyers being bitten and litigants chased through the corridors becoming a grim routine.

The situation has reached a fever pitch, with the High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) flagging cases where strays have even breached the inner sanctum of the courtrooms, turning a temple of justice into a literal dogfight for safety.

“Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto” means “Safety, health and wellbeing of people is the highest law” however for the High Court of Gujarat this highest law does not seem to be of much importance. A dog or dogs may run after advocates, litigants, staff, they may snarl or bark at these people and even bite any of such persons, the high court administration would do nothing.

In the last week one advocate was bitten by one such dog having a permanent abode in the high court building.

The advocate is still taking anti-rabbi injections and has not come out of the shock and suffering when I personally spoke to him. T

his fact and the facts narrated hereafter raises a question whether we in Gujarat High Court are under the GOD’s governance or under the DOGs’ dominion!!! I would like to clarify that in the previous sentence by using the word “God” I mean to convey “the rule of law” including the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India and by using the word “Dogs’” I mean to convey the dog as an animal.

The Gujarat High Court has been grappling with a persistent stray dog menace for over twelve years. During its earlier functioning at the Income-Tax Crossroads premises (1960–1999), and even after its relocation to Sola in 1999, no such nuisance was reported for more than a decade. Initially, only occasional stray sightings were noticed.

However, in subsequent years, the dog population increased rapidly, turning the court परिसर into their permanent habitat. The practice of feeding dogs by some advocates, staff, and visitors within the campus further entrenched their presence.

Today, dogs occupy every building and floor — from lawyers’ chambers and the library to corridors and entryways of the main court complex. Groups of three to five dogs routinely station themselves at entrances and staircases, snarling and intimidating entrants. As recently as today at 11 a.m., five dogs were seen perched on the porch parapet, howling at incoming litigants and lawyers, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

Dogs in the Gujarat High Court premises create serious hygiene and safety issues. They urinate near lawyers’ chambers, on bags and even where snacks are sold, compromising food safety. If chamber doors are left open, dogs enter, occupy seats, and damage furniture. They also chew or steal footwear left outside. Lawyers and visitors live in constant fear of being chased or bitten.

Attempts by the former Chief Justice (2019–2021) to control the menace were blocked by animal rights activists and dog lovers, resulting in over 25 dogs now roaming the chambers and main building. The exact number of dogs in the compound is unknown, and it is unclear whether they are sterilized or vaccinated, as their population continues to grow.

Following Supreme Court orders in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 5 of 2025, the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association repeatedly urged Chief Justice Sunita Agrawal to address the dog menace in the court premises.

On 21 January 2026, the Association again requested compliance, noting that while 65 members opposed removal, over 210 members passed a resolution supporting it. Videos of dogs being fed near chambers were also shown.

However, the Chief Justice proposed creating a feeding area for dogs instead of removing them, which the Association views as defiance of Supreme Court directions. Under Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities must aid in compliance with Supreme Court judgments, and non-compliance by a High Court Chief Justice undermines this mandate.

Through this letter, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court is earnestly urged to interpret and implement the Supreme Court’s directions in their true letter and spirit, adopting a holistic reading of the judgment wherein the term ‘institutional area’ is used generically and not restrictively.

As the administrative head, the Hon’ble Chief Justice is constitutionally bound under Article 144 to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 7 November 2025. Reliance on any representation opposing the removal of dogs is impermissible, as constitutional compliance cannot be subjected to majority or minority opinion.

The directions of the Supreme Court must prevail. Accordingly, it is humbly requested that orders be issued to the local authorities to remove all dogs from the entire High Court campus within ten days.

Failing compliance, a peaceful protest may be undertaken on 4 February 2026, not as a strike but as an assertion of the fundamental right to safety and hygiene under Article 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is also respectfully urged to take cognizance of this grave situation while hearing Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025 and issue appropriate directions