Adequate government measures for stray cattle care obviate further judicial monitoring at this stage.

The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings following a Navbharat report dated 23 October 2025 alleging that cattle were dying from hunger and thirst in the Beltara and Sukalkari areas and attributing the deaths to veterinary-department negligence.

During the proceedings, the State reported 46 temporary cattle shelters housing 4,160 cattle and 118 functioning gaushalas sheltering 37,632 destitute animals.

It also reported that 36 Goudhams had received administrative approval, with some operational and others being established, and described the monitoring arrangements for gaushalas, Goudhams and temporary shelters.

The Court considered whether continued judicial monitoring was necessary.

1. Whether the State’s reported arrangements and measures for the protection, care and settlement of stray cattle made continued monitoring by the Court unnecessary at that stage.

2. Whether the proceedings should remain open to future consideration if a similar issue arose.

The Court referred to the State’s Goudham Yojana, established by order dated 6 August 2025, which provides for Goudhams for the protection and conservation of stray cattle and prescribes operating and care responsibilities.

It also noted the monitoring framework under “Prapatra 6” of the Chhattisgarh Go-Seva Ayog Rules, 2005, requiring local Veterinary Assistant Surgeons to visit gaushalas and Goudhams and submit monthly information.

The Court did not set out or apply a separate statutory test or precedent; its decision was based on the measures and monitoring arrangements reported by the State.

The State’s affidavit described existing shelters and gaushalas, the establishment of additional Goudhams, and recurring veterinary inspections and reporting requirements.

On that record, the Court concluded that the Government was taking adequate steps through the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gouseva Ayog to protect and care for stray cattle, and that further monitoring was not required at that stage.

It clarified that a similar issue arising in future could be brought before it in appropriate proceedings.