Across parts of Pakistan, stray dogs are reportedly being poisoned and shot once again.
Municipal authorities continue presenting these operations as necessary responses to public safety concerns, dog bites and rabies fear. But what is now making the situation increasingly serious is that many of these actions appear to be happening despite repeated intervention from the Lahore High Court.
That changes the conversation entirely. Because this is no longer simply a debate about stray dogs.
It is becoming a question about whether municipalities are continuing indiscriminate killing campaigns despite existing court rulings, policy frameworks and legal challenges already pushing Pakistan toward humane population management instead.
The Lahore High Court Has Already Addressed This
One of the most important developments in Pakistan’s stray dog debate came through a series of Lahore High Court proceedings that increasingly challenged mass culling practices.
The most widely referenced was Eiraj Hassan & Others v Government of Punjab (2025).
According to reporting on the case, the court reinforced that Punjab’s Animal Birth Control Policy 2021 not indiscriminate killing should guide stray dog management going forward.
The policy framework promotes:
sterilisation,
vaccination,
humane capture,
tagging,
veterinary supervision,
and controlled return programmes.
Critically, reporting on the case stated that poisoning and shooting stray dogs as a broad population-control method violated this framework.
The court reportedly clarified that euthanasia should only apply in limited veterinary circumstances such as:
incurable illness,
terminal suffering,
or mortal injury.
That is a world away from indiscriminate street culling.
The April 2026 Challenge Changed the Situation Further
The issue escalated again in April 2026 after renewed legal challenges before the Lahore High Court following allegations that authorities were still carrying out shooting operations despite previous court intervention.
The hearings followed growing public pressure after the death of a young girl in Lahore’s Township area following a dog attack. Fear and anger rose quickly. Municipal pressure intensified.
But rather than simply endorsing aggressive culling, the court instead turned its attention toward whether authorities were violating Punjab’s own Animal Birth Control Policy through indiscriminate killing campaigns.
The petitions, brought before Justice Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, argued that despite earlier rulings and policy commitments, stray dogs were still being shot rather than managed through sterilisation and vaccination programmes.
One of the central flashpoints involved alleged shooting operations in Lahore’s Johar Town area. According to reporting from the proceedings, armed teams reportedly conducted dog shooting operations in residential areas despite previous assurances before the court that humane policy measures would be followed.
Barrister Maqsooma Zahra Bokhari, representing the petitioners, argued that the operations created panic among residents and accused authorities of disregarding both policy and previous court directions.
Yet Reports of Killing Continued
Despite these rulings, allegations of ongoing culling operations did not disappear.
In January 2026, the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court again intervened after petitions alleged stray dogs were still being killed despite earlier directives and the existence of the Animal Birth Control Policy.
The court issued another stay order against culling operations.
Then again in April 2026, further proceedings reportedly saw Punjab authorities give undertakings before the court that they would implement the Animal Birth Control Policy in letter and spirit following continued allegations of unlawful killing campaigns.
That sequence is important. Because it suggests this is not an isolated misunderstanding.
It suggests courts are repeatedly having to revisit the same issue:
the continued killing of stray dogs despite a legal and policy shift toward humane management.
What made the April proceedings especially significant was that the court reportedly demanded written undertakings from:
the Punjab government,
the Lahore Waste Management Company,
and the Livestock Department,
requiring them to formally commit to implementing the Animal Birth Control Policy in letter and spirit.
The court also reportedly warned that future violations could trigger contempt proceedings.
That matters enormously. Because at that point, the issue stopped looking like policy confusion.
It started looking like possible non-compliance with repeated judicial intervention.
Rabies Fear Is Central to the Debate
None of this means Pakistan does not face genuine public health concerns.
Rabies exists. Dog bites occur. Communities can and do experience serious incidents.
But one of the growing concerns raised by campaigners is that rabies fear can quickly become a justification for indiscriminate action against entire stray populations.
And that distinction matters. A stray dog is not automatically a rabid dog. A barking dog is not automatically a rabid dog. A fearful dog is not automatically a rabid dog.
Yet during periods of heightened fear and public pressure, nuance can disappear very quickly.
Once rabies enters public discourse strongly enough, almost any action can begin being framed as necessary:
poisoning,
shooting,
rapid removals,
mass collection operations.
This is precisely why courts become so important. Because courts are often one of the few mechanisms capable of forcing governments back toward evidence-based policy rather than panic-driven responses.
Pakistan Already Has a Policy Framework
One of the biggest misconceptions internationally is that Pakistan simply has no system. That is not entirely true.
Punjab already has the Animal Birth Control Policy 2021. The framework itself acknowledges humane management principles through:
sterilisation,
vaccination,
and population control measures designed to reduce long-term breeding and disease risk.
The real problem increasingly appears to be implementation. Humane population management is slower.
It requires:
veterinary infrastructure,
funding,
vaccination programmes,
sterilisation capacity,
waste management,
monitoring,
and long-term political commitment.
Mass culling, by contrast, creates the appearance of immediate action. Dogs disappear from sight quickly. Public pressure temporarily reduces. Officials appear decisive.
But history repeatedly shows that removing dogs without sustained sterilisation and vaccination programmes rarely creates lasting control.
Populations rebound. New dogs move into empty territories. And the cycle begins again.
Fear Creates Permission for Cruelty
Perhaps the most dangerous part of this entire situation is how quickly fear can normalise extreme measures. Once public panic takes hold, scrutiny weakens.
Questions begin disappearing:
Were the dogs actually rabid?
Were they vaccinated?
Were veterinary assessments carried out?
Were humane procedures followed?
Were healthy dogs killed alongside sick ones?
Instead, the existence of fear itself becomes treated as justification. That is when cruelty becomes easiest to defend.
And over time, entire stray populations risk becoming viewed not as living animals requiring management, but as problems requiring elimination.
The Bigger Question Pakistan Now Faces
Pakistan does need stronger rabies prevention. It needs reliable access to post-exposure treatment.
It needs bite prevention education. It needs vaccination infrastructure. It needs properly implemented sterilisation programmes.
But increasingly, Pakistan also faces another question:
If courts have already intervened repeatedly against indiscriminate culling, why do reports of poisoning and shooting continue returning?
Because once court-backed humane policy exists on paper, continued large-scale killing no longer looks like absence of guidance.
It begins looking like failure or refusal to follow it.