Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 260688
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Nelofar vs Chief Commissioner Islamabad etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 260688. In this matter between Nelofar and Chief Commissioner Islamabad etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro DECISION DATE: 28-APR-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-2165-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 260688 PARTIES: Nelofar VS Chief Commissioner Islamabad etc LAW / SECTION: under Article 5(4) SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Petitioner, in probono capacity files this writ against operation against stray dogs in Islamabad. Seeks database of stray dogs. ============================================================ Form No. HCJD/C-1 JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
W.P No.2165 of 2025 Nelofar Versus Islamabad Capital Territory, through the Chief & Deputy Chief Commissioners, etc. W.P No.177 of 2026 Muhammad Ajmal Khan Baloch Versus Chief Commissioner, ICT etc. Dates of Hearing: 23.02.2026 & 04.03.2026
Petitioner by: Mr. Altamush Saeed, Advocate. Shamsa Jabeen Kayani, Advocate (in W.P. 177-2026).
Respondents by: Mr. Shaharyar Tariq, Advocate and Ms. Safina Sarfraz Rauf Advocates for CDA. Ms. Shaneela Razzaq, Advocate for CDA in (W.P. 177- 2026) M/s Hassan Rasheed Qamar, Ch. Waseem Bahadur and Muhammad Tayyib, Advocates. Mr. Sarfraz Rauf and Ms. Asia Batool, learned Assistant Attorney General. Hafiz Ati Ullah, Libah Nadeem, Mehraj Tareen, Umair Ahmed and Muhammad Naeem Wahid, State Counsels. Khalid Mehmood Khan, Addl. Legal Advisor MCI. Mr. Muhammad Rashid Cheema, AD (A/F) on behalf of respondent No.8. Ms. Ayesha Shehzad, Assistant Director (Wildlife), Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB).
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.:– Through this judgment I inted to decide the instant Writ Petition as well as Writ Petition No. 177-2026, as common question of law and facts is involved. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
(1) Declare the actions of Respondent No. 1 to 10 to be illegal and in violation of the notified Stray dog population control policy for ICT and the IWMB VMCI Islamabad High Court decision PLD 2021 1SL 06 with persuasive reliance namely on the Punjab Animal Birth Control Policy of 2021 read with ICA 277/2017 Hamza Khan v Govt of Punjab
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 2
and WP 3787/2024 Anila Umair v Govt of Punjab and issue a permanent direction to them for not violating the policy and further Respondents may be restrained from taking any illegal actions regarding the illegal killings eradication relocation/capture of dogs across Islamabad whereby SDPCC may be closed on an interim basis until it is handed over in a credible animal welfare organization in the best interest of humans and animals. (2) Direct the respondents to fulfil their respective duties per the Stray dog population control Policy Article 5(4) and Article 6-Education, Regulatory Framework (3) Direct respondents to submit an SOP and records of animals kept at SDPCC not limited to their capture, neuter, vaccination and relocation. (4) Direct respondents to not pick up any lactating, collared, healthy, sterilized and vaccinated dogs in Islamabad. Develop SOPS for picking up unhealthy or injured animals before taking them to SDPCC as it puts the center at risk, given no regulatory framework has been developed. (5) Further direct respondents to develop a transparent process via public- private partnerships for issuing such tender offers to people based on merit to credible animal welfare organizations and offer them the required funding (6) Direct respondents to develop criminal penalties not limited to fines and imprisonment in addition to punishments such as permanent forfeiture of animals and permanently disallow any ownership or interaction with animals and mandatory animal welfare related community service and education. (7) That the policy's regulatory framework development structure to be created under Article 5(4) be operationalized through the development of A steering committee with addition of at least one expert in Animal Laws with relevant qualifications including a Masters in Animal Law, a veterinarian, food technologist, Animal welfare NGOs and CDA, MCI, MOCC, EPA, IWMB officials etc. (8) That an animal abuse registry and dog bites database be created as a neutral mechanism for ensuring objective numbers are made available to the Government and the public on number of dog bites, vaccination and sterilization made to ensure both parents, women, the elderly and children can feel safe while being surrounded by community dogs. It is scientifically proven people who abuse dogs tend to become domestic abusers as well. (9) Declare that dog culling is an ineffective method of eradicating of rabies as it spreads misinformation, puts a massive financial burden in a crippling economy of Pakistan, and violates Islamic treatment of animals is illegal and unconstitutional and shall have a strict fine if someone kills or harm stray animal under the policy. (10) Direct the respondents for the development of a One Health approach for the eradication of rabies and reduction of zoonotic disease spillover under the policy. (11) Direct the respondents to not violate the implementation of the Stray dog population control policy for ICT and implement it in its letter and spirit. (12) Permanently restrain the Respondents and all public functionaries for carrying out campaigns targeted at killing stray dogs by poisoning or shooting them or keeping at unqualified housing facilities (13) Direct Respondents to take reasonable measure prescribed under the policy rather than mercilessly killing or improperly capturing stray dogs and amend any laws that contravene the policy (14) Declare that dogs have sentiments and emotions and should not be treated cruelly/brutally by the Respondents, (15) Direct that to end rabies the only effective method is vaccinations, sterilizations or TNVR facilities by Veterinary Doctors. Further declare that under the regulatory framework make it as mandatory as only a duly appointed veterinarian by the can verify to the rabid and
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 3
incurable nature of a dog and humanely euthanize it using a medical drug Under no circumstances shall even a rabid dog be culled and a healthy dog must be humanely sterilized and vaccinated and relocated from where it was found as a mechanism to ensure more dangerous dogs do not take its place in society. (16) Direct Respondents to initiate compulsory mass vaccination of stray dogs against rabies conducting sterilization of such stray dogs; (17) Direct the Respondents to take steps for an efficient and effective Dog Population Management; (18) Direct the Respondents to raise awareness about the tools for reproductive control in dogs; (19) Direct the Respondents to hold sensitization trainings in light of Islam and the policy for its own staff and also offer a subject on animal and environmental welfare across Schools in Punjab in line with Article 9, 9A and 25A of the Constitution and Article 6 of the policy while working with NGOs and educational institutes Any other relief this Honorable Court deems fit in view of the circumstances explained above may graciously be also allowed.
And through Writ Petition no. 177 of 2026 the petitioner seeks following relief:- i. Declare that the failure of the Respondents to effectively control the stray dog population constitute a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Islamabad, particularly the right to life (Article 9) and health. ii. Directing the Respondents to immediately constitute a competent body, inclusive of relevant scientific and public health experts and community stakeholders, to review and strictly implement the legally binding ICT Stray Dog Population Control Policy 2020 and the ICT Bylaws 2023. iii. Issue a direction of quashing the de facto operational policy, including the exclusive reliance on the unproven TNVR/ABC model, to the extent it fails to prioritize Public Health and Safety as a Public Health Emergency and is non-compliant with international scientific guidelines for rabies-endemic developing countries. iv. Grant any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, including the award of costs.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the superior Courts of the country have widely interpreted the right to life guaranteed under Articles 9 and 9A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to encompass not merely human existence but a life of dignity, environmental balance, and ecological protection. Reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as PLD 2021 Islamabad 06, wherein the court recognized the natural rights of wild animals and acknowledged their intrinsic link to human welfare and public health, holding that they are protected under the constitutional framework. It was further contended that animals possess inherent rights under Article 9 of the Constitution and that human beings, being the
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 4
dominant species, bear a fiduciary duty to guard, protect, and cater to the behavioral, social, and physiological needs of animals. Such an obligation, it was argued, is essential not only for protecting animals but also for safeguarding human survival and maintaining ecological equilibrium on the planet. Learned counsel further contended that Islamic teachings and principles unequivocally command kindness towards animals and strictly prohibit the infliction of cruelty or unnecessary suffering upon them. Reference was made to the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), which contain numerous injunctions and examples emphasizing compassion and humane treatment of animals. It was also contended that international instruments, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, advocate for the protection of children from all forms of violence, which, by necessary implication, includes exposure to animal cruelty, as such acts adversely affect their psychological and moral development. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 and 5, at the very outset, made a Conceding statement to the prayer and submitted that they are ready to entertain the suggestion proposed by the petitioners. Furthermore, on the subject issue, the counsel submits that amount of Rs.19,000/- is being spent on Trap, Sterilization, Vaccination, and Release (TNVR) of stray dogs. Whereas the counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that in compliance with the directions of this court passed in Writ Petition No. 1155 of 2020 dated 21-05-2020. The Prescribe Policy and mechanism regarding the stray dogs has been framed, and a committee for the Management of Stray Dogs in ICT has been formulated. He further submits that the committee, consisting of seven members, has been constituted to address the subject issue professionally and productively. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 5
5. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking various directions against the respondents with regard to the alleged non-implementation and violation of the Stray Dog Population Control Policy in the Islamabad Capital Territory (The Policy). The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for restraining the respondents from carrying out alleged unlawful measures such as killing, relocation, and improper handling of stray dogs, and has further sought directions for formulation and enforcement of regulatory mechanisms, transparency in animal management practices, and adoption of humane and scientifically recognized methods for control of stray dog population, including vaccination and sterilization, in the larger interest of public health, environmental balance, and animal welfare. 6. The Stray Dog Population Control Policy for the Islamabad Capital Territory, notified vide reference No. 10(01) IWMB-2020 dated 28.12.2020, read with subsequent notification dated 10.08.2020, and in the backdrop of the judgment rendered by this court and reported in PLD 2021 Islamabad 06. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have failed to implement the said policy in its true letter and spirit, particularly Articles 5(4) and 6 thereof, thereby resulting in arbitrary, unregulated, and allegedly unlawful handling of stray dogs within the territorial limits of Islamabad. 7. The "Policy on Stray Dog Population Control in Islamabad Capital Territory" was formulated by the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board under the Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan. The said policy provides a regulatory and institutional framework for humane, scientific, and coordinated management of stray and feral dog populations, keeping in view the dual objectives of safeguarding public health, particularly against zoonotic diseases such as rabies, and ensuring animal welfare. It defines guiding principles, definitions, institutional responsibilities, and control mechanisms,
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 6
placing primary responsibility upon the Metropolitan Corporation of Islamabad, with supportive roles assigned to the Livestock and Dairy Development Department, environmental agencies, private veterinarians, and civil society. The policy further envisages adopting modern population control techniques, including vaccination, sterilization, regulation of ownership and breeding, and public awareness, while discouraging inhumane practices such as indiscriminate culling, thereby aiming to strike a balance between human safety, environmental concerns, and the ethical treatment of animals. 8. During the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioners placed on record, through a civil miscellaneous application, certain photographic material. A careful perusal thereof prima facie depicts a number of dogs lying dead in a vehicle attributed to the Capital Development Authority. When confronted with a specific query regarding the alleged killing of animals, the respondents were unable to furnish any cogent, lawful, or satisfactory explanation. This state of affairs raises serious concerns, not merely of administrative lapse, but of a fundamental departure from the rule of law and the normative standards governing humane treatment of living beings. It is by now well settled that even in matters of public safety, the exercise of State authority must remain tempered by legality, proportionality, and compassion. The indiscriminate and unexplained destruction of animal life, if established, stands in stark conflict with the internationally recognized principles of animal welfare, which mandate humane and regulated control measures, and is equally inconsistent with the ethical and juristic foundations of Islamic law, which enjoin mercy, restraint, and accountability in the treatment of animals. Such conduct, therefore, cannot be countenanced in a civilized legal order, where the legitimacy of state action is measured not only by its objective but also by the means adopted to achieve it. 9. The teachings of Islam unequivocally condemn cruelty to animals and emphasize that even where control or elimination becomes necessary, it must be
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 7
undertaken with restraint, necessity, and in the least painful manner. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have prohibited the needless killing of animals. It has ordained kindness even at the time of slaughter, thereby underscoring that life, irrespective of its form, is a trust subject to ethical limits. Viewed in this backdrop, any act amounting to mass and indiscriminate killing of animals, without lawful justification and adherence to humane standards, cannot be reconciled either with the principles of international law or with the moral and legal framework of Islamic law. Such conduct, therefore, is not only legally untenable but also ethically indefensible in a society governed by the rule of law and guided by values of compassion and justice. 10. The lord of the world in the holy Quran in Surah Al-An'am, 6:38 says "There is no creature on the earth or bird that flies with its wings but that they are communities like you". In another verse, Allah says, "And the earth, He has assigned it to all living creatures." (Surah Ar-Rahman, 55:10). Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) says “ that a good deed done to an animal is as meritorious as a good deed done to a human being, while an act of cruelty to an animal is as reprehensible as an act of cruelty to a human being”. This statement conveys that kindness, mercy, and compassion are not confined to human interactions alone but extend to all living creatures. Acts of care towards animals carry moral and spiritual reward, whereas cruelty towards them attracts moral blame, thereby placing animal welfare within the broader framework of ethical responsibility in Islam. 11. It is now increasingly acknowledged in modern constitutional thought that animals are not mere chattels or inanimate objects to be dealt with solely at human convenience; rather, they are living, sentient beings, capable of pain, distress, comfort, and social response. The law, therefore, cannot remain indifferent to their existence. Life, in its constitutional and moral conception, is not a value confined to human survival alone; it is the foundational premise
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 8
upon which all legal protection against cruelty and unnecessary suffering is built. An animal, by virtue of being alive, possesses a natural claim to exist in an environment compatible with its behavioral, social, and physiological needs. To deny such protection is not merely to neglect a creature of God, but to diminish the ethical content of law itself. The prevention of cruelty to animals is thus not an isolated statutory concern; it is integrally connected with the broader constitutional promise of a civilized society governed by dignity, restraint, and compassion. Once the law recognizes that an animal can feel pain and suffering, it necessarily follows that the state and its functionaries are under a legal as well as moral obligation to ensure that such suffering is not inflicted arbitrarily, unnecessarily, or in excess of lawful necessity. Cruelty, neglect, and indiscriminate destruction of animal life cannot be justified on the basis of administrative convenience, for the true measure of a lawful society lies not in how it treats the powerful, but in how it safeguards those living beings that are wholly dependent on human conscience and institutional responsibility. Viewed from another angle, the relationship between human life and animal welfare is neither remote nor accidental. Ecological balance, public health, disease control, and environmental harmony are deeply interlinked with the welfare, preservation, and regulated management of animal species. The injury inflicted upon animals, their needless killing, or the destruction of their habitat, ultimately reverberates through the human condition itself. Thus, compassion towards animals is not merely a matter of sentiment; it is a constitutional necessity, an ecological imperative, and a marker of legal maturity. Accordingly, it may safely be observed that an animal, though not a constitutional "person" in the technical sense, is nonetheless a living being entitled to protection from unnecessary pain, suffering, torture, and arbitrary destruction. The law must, therefore, be interpreted and applied in a manner that preserves this minimum sphere of humane treatment, for to protect animal life from cruelty is, in essence, to affirm
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 9
the moral seriousness of law, the constitutional value of life, and the civilizational duty of humankind. 12. A comparative overview of international practices concerning the management of stray dog populations, with the objective of drawing guidance from diverse regulatory models. It highlights that different jurisdictions adopt varying approaches depending upon their socio-legal priorities, public health concerns, and institutional capacities. While certain countries have historically relied upon capture and culling methods, others have progressively shifted towards humane and sustainable strategies such as sterilization, vaccination, public awareness, and community participation. This comparative analysis serves to demonstrate that effective stray dog management cannot be confined to a single rigid model, but must instead strike a careful balance between public safety and animal welfare, informed by evolving global standards and local exigencies. 13. In examining comparative international practices, it is observed that different jurisdictions adopt varying approaches based on local conditions and policy priorities. In Malaysia, the predominant method involves the capture and killing of stray dogs; however, this approach has attracted criticism for its ineffectiveness and lack of humane consideration. Consequently, animal welfare organizations advocate for more sustainable and humane alternatives, particularly the Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage strategy, coupled with public education and the development of adequately funded shelters. Local authorities operate under ministerial guidance, with institutional support for implementing such humane control mechanisms. In contrast, Turkey has historically adopted a more compassionate approach, mandating municipalities to capture, vaccinate, sterilize, and subsequently release stray animals back into their natural environment. Nevertheless, in response to increasing incidents and public safety concerns, recent legislative developments have introduced measures permitting
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 10
removal of stray dogs from public spaces and, in limited circumstances, euthanasia of animals exhibiting aggressive behavior or suffering from incurable diseases, thereby reflecting a calibrated balance between public safety and animal welfare. 14. Indonesia presents a hybrid model wherein, despite the absence of specific legislation exclusively governing stray dogs, general legal provisions prohibit cruelty and abandonment. The control strategy is largely community driven, supported by animal welfare organizations, and includes feeding, sterilization, rehoming, and vaccination campaigns, particularly targeting rabies prevention. At the same time, culling of dangerous or diseased animals remains permissible under regulated conditions. 15. The situation in India illustrates the complexity of balancing public safety with animal rights. Judicial intervention has played a significant role, particularly in response to escalating incidents of dog bites and rabies risks. The Supreme Court of India initially directed comprehensive measures, including capture, sterilization, vaccination, and relocation of stray dogs to designated shelters, with a clear prohibition on their release back into public spaces. However, upon reconsideration and in light of practical constraints and public response, the court subsequently modified its stance, permitting the release of sterilized and vaccinated dogs while simultaneously regulating feeding practices and mandating designated areas for such activities. This reflects an evolving judicial approach seeking equilibrium between humane treatment and public safety imperatives. Overall, the policy material demonstrates that effective management of stray dog populations requires a multifaceted approach grounded in prevention, legal regulation, institutional coordination, and societal participation, while also drawing upon comparative experiences to inform a balanced and humane framework.
W.P No.2165-2025 & W.P. No. 177-2026 11
16. The legal framework governing the management of stray animals in Pakistan is primarily decentralized, operating at the provincial level, whereby each province retains the authority to enact and enforce its own laws and regulations. There exists no uniform or comprehensive national legislation specifically addressing stray animal management. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, continues to serve as the foundational statute in this domain; however, it is largely outdated and has not undergone…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.