Muzzling of pet dogs in public places not mandatory, Chennai Corporation tells Madras High Court

The Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), on Tuesday (November 25, 2025), told the Madras High Court it is not mandatory for pet owners to muzzle their dogs whenever they are taken to public places for walking or other purposes and that the civic body had only issued an advisory to that effect.

Appearing before Justice V. Lakshminarayanan who was seized of a writ petition filed by the NGO ‘People for Cattle in India’ which complained that breeds such as Bulldogs could not be muzzled, GCC counsel A. Arun Babu said, no pet parent would be fined for not muzzling the dogs.

The counsel, assisted by GCC Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) J. Kamal Hussain, said, only leashing of the pet dogs in public places had been made mandatory since it was meant for protection of the general public and that those who let their pets loose without a leash would be fined ₹500.

The court was also informed that so far 82,000 online applications had been received for licensing of pet dogs in the city limits and that 35,348 pets had been vaccinated and certified. The counsel said, the last date for obtaining licences was flexible. It had now been extended till December 7.

When the judge wanted to know whether insertion of microchips into the body of the pets was only a one-time measure or should it be done annually, the GCC clarified microchipping had to be done only once and it would be used for easy identification of the details regarding the pets.

On the issue of how animal lovers and NGOs, who provide shelter for several animals temporarily until the animals get adopted by others, would be dealt with, the GCC counsel said, they could register the animals and transfer such registration to the adopted parents without paying any charge.

No restriction on pet ownership

The GCC further clarified there was no restriction of the number of pets, irrespective of the species, that an individual could own and the restriction of the web portal not allowing an individual to make more than four applications was just a technical glitch that had now been addressed.

When a woman lawyer complained the option of ‘Indian mongrel’ was not available in the portal, Mr. Arun Babu said, the Indian mongrel had got left out though the GCC had listed out various foreign as well as native breeds in the web portal but it could always be registered under the ‘others’ category.

The CVO also told the court any pet owner or NGO, facing any issues with respect to licensing or overcrowding of the vaccination and registration centres, could approach him with their grievances and an appropriate call would be taken by his office on all those issues.

After recording the submissions made by the GCC counsel as well as the CVO, the judge closed the writ petition after observing that the grievances raised by the NGO had been addressed to a great extent.