The Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of prioritizing human lives over the lives of stray dogs due to the threat posed by aggressive stray dogs, particularly affecting children and the elderly.The court highlighted instances where citizens, especially school children and individuals going for morning walks, faced fear and hindrances in their daily activities due to the presence of stray dogs.
The court directed the government to take action to protect citizens from violent stray dogs in public places, emphasizing the government’s responsibility in ensuring people’s safety.Additionally, the Supreme Court mentioned that those who feed stray dogs could be held liable if the dogs attack people, referencing a Kerala High Court judgment from 2015 that allowed culling of the stray dog population as per local body regulations. In response to the issue of rabies-infected stray dogs, the Kerala government planned to seek Supreme Court permission for culling as existing laws did not permit the killing of such dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
““Barking dogs seldom bite” is an English proverb. But in reality, it may not be correct in our state at least…If we read the newspapers, we can see regular news in which there is an attack from stray dogs towards small children, youngsters and even old people,” the Court observed.
The Court has ruled that local self-government authorities should grant licenses to animal lovers who rescue stray dogs, in line with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules). The court urged the State and Central governments to create guidelines or laws for granting licenses to individuals interested in protecting stray dogs. The ruling was based on two petitions filed by residents of Muzhthadam ward in Kannur, who claimed they were severely inconvenienced by Rajeev Krishnan, who cared for injured stray dogs in his house. They alleged that the number of strays increased due to Krishnan’s unhygienic and unsafe surroundings.
Krishnan countered the petitions, claiming that he had been maintaining the dogs within his property and that they pose no threat to humans. The court directed Krishnan to approach the Corporation of Kannur to obtain a license to maintain the dogs, imposing strict conditions in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and ABC Rules, 2023.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Prajit Ratnakaran, E Mohammed Shafi, KR Avinash (Kunnath), and Abdul Raoof Pallipath, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate KK Chandran Pillai and advocates S Ambily, Jikku Seban George, M Meena John, and Phijo Pradeesh Philip. Government Pleader BS Syamantak appeared for the State government.
