NHAI Moves Supreme Court Over Stray Animals, Says Local Authorities Must Take Primary Responsibility

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has approached the Supreme Court seeking clarification of its May 19, 2026, judgment on stray animals, arguing that the primary responsibility for removing, impounding and sheltering animals found on national highways rests with state authorities, local bodies and Highway Administrations.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned NHAI’s application before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. The Chief Justice agreed to place the matter before the special Bench that had issued the directions, Live Law reports.

What NHAI Wants Clarified

The application has been filed in the suo motu proceedings titled In Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price. NHAI has sought clarification specifically on Direction G of the May 19 judgment, which requires it to formulate and implement, in coordination with states and Union Territories, a comprehensive mechanism to tackle stray cattle and other animals on National Highways and National Expressways.

Under the judgment, NHAI was directed to deploy specialised transport vehicles for the safe handling and relocation of stray animals, create or earmark holding and shelter facilities, enter into arrangements with animal welfare organisations and gaushalas, and establish a monitoring and coordination framework.

NHAI has told the Supreme Court that these directions should not be interpreted as imposing an independent obligation on the authority to establish and operate animal shelters, gaushalas or transport fleets across the national highway network.

Highway Role Has Limits, Says Authority

NHAI has relied on the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, to argue that its statutory mandate primarily covers the development, maintenance and management of national highways and traffic-related functions.

The authority has pointed out that the 2002 Act already provides a mechanism for dealing with animals and other obstructions on highways. Section 37 prohibits allowing an animal to stand or proceed on a highway without prescribed safety control and allows the Highway Administration to remove and detain an animal causing an obstruction.

NHAI has further stated that, under a Central Government notification dated October 29, 2025, District Magistrates have been appointed as Highway Administrations for the relevant stretches. It has argued that they are consequently the primary field authorities responsible for removing obstructions and encroachments under the 2002 Act.

According to NHAI, a combined reading of the two laws shows that the primary responsibility for physically removing stray animals from national highways and arranging their custody and shelter lies with Highway Administrations and state and local authorities.

Shelter Network Would Be A Massive Exercise

NHAI has argued that establishing and operating animal shelters requires specialised infrastructure and personnel for veterinary care, fodder, sanitation, disease surveillance and related work that falls outside its statutory mandate.

It has told the court that the national highway network administered by NHAI, the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and state public works departments extends to approximately 1.46 lakh km. Creating shelters across such a vast network, it said, would require land identification or acquisition, construction, transport arrangements, fodder supplies, maintenance and recruitment of specialised personnel.

The authority has also submitted that its existing budget is meant for highway development, operation and maintenance, as well as debt servicing. It said there is no separate budgetary head for creating and maintaining animal shelters.

The scale cited by NHAI underlines the practical question at the heart of its plea: whether an agency created primarily to develop and manage highways should also be expected to build and operate a nationwide animal-care infrastructure. Its submission seeks to draw a clearer line between ensuring road safety and assuming responsibility for the long-term custody and care of stray animals.

States And Local Bodies In Focus

NHAI has also relied on the constitutional and statutory framework governing animal management, maintaining that functions such as sterilisation and sheltering fall within the domain of state governments and local bodies.

At the same time, the authority has stressed that it is not asking the Supreme Court to dilute its road-safety directions. NHAI said it is prepared to coordinate and facilitate the removal of stray animals, identify vulnerable highway stretches, assist in their capture and transportation through the authorities concerned, and coordinate with states and gaushalas to find shelter space.

This distinction is central to NHAI’s case. The authority is not disputing the need to keep highways free of stray animals, but is asking the court to clarify who must ultimately take custody of the animals after they are removed from the roads.

Also Watch:

NHAI Seeks Defined Responsibilities

NHAI has asked the Supreme Court to clarify that its role would be to coordinate, facilitate and, where feasible, provide contractual support to state governments, Union Territories, municipal bodies, Panchayati Raj institutions and Highway Administrations.

It wants these authorities to bear the primary statutory responsibility for removing, impounding and sheltering stray animals found on national highways.

NHAI 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 the national highway network. It has, however, said it will continue to cooperate with state authorities in implementing the Supreme Court’s road-safety directions.

The clarification sought by NHAI could therefore determine how responsibilities are divided among highway authorities, district administrations, state governments and local bodies while implementing the court’s directions on stray animals.