The Telangana High Court (HC) has stepped into a sensitive dispute over 37 pet dogs that were taken from a woman’s home in Hyderabad, after five of the animals died in care. The case has drawn attention from both animal-rights advocates and legal observers due to questions about welfare, municipal authority powers, and pet ownership rights.

Entrepreneur Kameshwari Pidaparthi had been keeping 37 dogs in her three-bedroom flat in Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Neighbours reportedly complained about incessant barking and disturbances. Following those complaints, civic authorities ( specifically the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ) seized the dogs under municipal rules and handed them over to the NGO People for Animals (PFA) for care and rehabilitation.

Pidaparthi considers the dogs to be her family members, arguing that they had lived with her for more than 13 years without cruelty or neglect. She denied all allegations of harmful treatment and said that barking alone did not justify the forceful removal of her pets.

The controversy escalated when five of the dogs died while under the care of PFA. According to the NGO’s counsel, the dogs succumbed to parvovirus infections which is a highly contagious viral disease and many had not been vaccinated or sterilised before being brought into the shelter. The NGO maintains that the animals were extremely vulnerable because they had never left the flat and their immune systems were unprepared for outside exposure.

Pidaparthi, however, blamed the deaths on alleged lack of proper care and negligence at the shelter, and questioned the NGO’s ability to look after her pets. She also objected to the idea of the remaining dogs being sterilised without her consent, expressing distrust in the facility’s management.

A division bench of the Telangana High Court, headed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin, has taken a proactive stance. Rather than simply letting the NGOs retain custody, the court directed GHMC officials to:

Inspect a new accommodation identified by Pidaparthi, a larger space where she says the dogs could be relocated safely.
Submit a detailed report on the suitability of that premises, including veterinary assessments.
Produce photographs and videos of the dogs currently housed at the PFA shelter to give the court a clear picture of their condition.

The court underscored the necessity for updated reports on the physical and psychological well-being of the animals and has adjourned the matter for a further hearing on March 6, 2026.

This legal dispute is part of a larger struggle in India to balance animal welfare with civic regulations and community concerns. Municipal bodies like GHMC have the statutory power to act on public complaints, but pet owners increasingly challenge such authority when it clashes with personal rights and emotional attachments.

Animal welfare laws in India such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and policies on sterilisation and vaccination are designed to protect animals from neglect and cruelty. At the same time, courts have shown sensitivity toward both animal safety and individual freedoms, often emphasising fair treatment and scientific care over summary actions.