CDA Openly Denies Public Entry to its Tax-Funded Stray Dog Shelter

A contentious battle over transparency, public funds, and humane governance unfolded before the Islamabad High Court on November 12, as serious allegations were raised against the Capital Development Authority (CDA) regarding its stray-dog management program.

The case, Nilofer v. Chief Commissioner, was heard by Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and featured forceful arguments from Environmental and Animal Rights Consultants, Pakistan, represented by its founding managing partner, Advocate Altamush Saeed.

The petitioners submitted a detailed synopsis challenging the government’s recent submission, an “initial framework,” they argued, does not constitute a framework at all. They further accused the authorities of placing misleading information on record, particularly concerning a policy implementation committee formed in 2020.

To counter the government’s position, the petitioners produced Dr. Ghani Ikram, co-chairman, member, and author of the original policy. Dr. Ikram confirmed that the committee has not convened since 2020 and had, in fact, been denotified, a fact already acknowledged by the court in proceedings on October 9.

The petitioners requested that the committee be reconstituted and that the CDA’s submissions be reassessed in light of these discrepancies.

The most contentious point of the hearing was the petitioners’ repeated request for access to the CDA’s stray-dog shelter, a request they described as routine but one that has been denied continuously.

They argued that the facility, fenced off with barbed wire and entirely closed to observers, operates with no transparency, raising troubling questions about why a taxpayer-funded animal shelter is treated like a restricted zone.

CDA’s counsel rejected the request outright, dismissing the petitioners as “activists” and suggesting that animal rights do not warrant priority. The petitioners countered that if the facility is functioning properly, there should be no reason to bar the public from entering.

They further alleged that the denial of access raises the possibility of serious misconduct, including the unlawful killing of dogs, a concern heightened by the allocation of Rs. 19,000 per dog under the TNVR program, while only a small fraction appears to be spent on humane procedures. These issues, they stressed, cannot be verified because the shelter’s operations remain concealed.

Citing the security situation following the November 11 blast, Justice Soomro adjourned the matter to November 20 for a detailed hearing. The petitioners argued that continued refusal to grant access is “nothing short of alarming” and maintained that transparency is crucial to uncover what they claim has been happening since the program’s inception.

The petitioners contend that if even an animal shelter cannot be inspected, the public has a right to demand answers, chief among them: what exactly is the CDA hiding?