Kerala High Court: The present batch of writ petitions were filed highlighting the serious issue of recurring and alarming increase of stray dog attacks in Kerala and the compensation claims of the victims. A government order was issued that allowed the local bodies to carry out euthanasia of stray dogs to curb the menace. A Single Judge Bench of C.S. Dias, J., while issuing a common order, deferred the decision of Government of Kerala to implement euthanasia of stray dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023 (‘2023 Rules’), while recognising the necessity of animal welfare.
Background
In M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 33355, and In Re: Bruno (Suo Motu) Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4644, the Court had issued comprehensive directions to combat the stray dog menace rampant in the State, but the situation only worsened over the years. The State submitted that there were over three lakh stray dogs in the State and in the past six months alone, sixteen lives were lost, and more than one lakh persons suffered injuries in stray dog attacks.
The Supreme Court in Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 293, had constituted a three-member committee to adjudicate claim petitions filed by victims of stray dog bites for compensation and for proper medical care that was operative till the Supreme Court closed all cases in view of the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 in Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3218.
When the present writ petitions came up for hearing, theCourt suo motu impleaded the Kerala Legal Services Authority (‘KLSA’) and directed the State to formulate guidelines and establish a mechanism to deal with claim petitions filed by the victims for compensation. A meeting was convened and the minutes revealed that there were 17 non-functional Animal Birth Control Centres (‘ABC Centres’) in the State and the existing ones were inadequate to control the increasing number of stray dogs. Only 15,767 stray dogs were sterilised in 2024-2025 and out of Rs 98 Crore allotted to the Local Self Government Department for stray dog control, only Rs 13 Crore was spent.
The Government of Kerala, by letter dated 26-07-2025, informed theCourt about the ongoing initiatives and the recent policy decisions taken in respect of the stray dog attacks like intensified sterilization and vaccination drives, extensive awareness campaigns, arranging shelter facilities for those that could not be returned to the streets, etc.
Clause 9 of the said letter referred to Rule 8 of the 2023 Rules that laid down the manner for Euthanasia of animals and provided the following two circumstances under which the Euthanasia should be executed by the veterinarians and local bodies:
- when the Central Government or the State Government found any animal, which was so diseased that, it could spread the disease, in order to control such disease; and
-
if the registered veterinary practitioner certified that the animal was mortally injured or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that it was cruel to keep it alive.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the exponential increase in stray dogs’ population was primarily attributable to the stakeholders’ failure to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 and 2023, and the directions passed by this Court from time to time.
The Court took note of Animal Welfare Board of India v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 86, wherein it washeld that the right to life of a human being must take precedence over the statutory rights afforded to animals and while humane treatment of animals was mandated, it could not override human safety.
Further, the Court referred to the judgment ofthe Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 322, wherein , the Court while considering the question whether the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act), 2017, was a piece of colourable legislation for the conduct of ‘Jallikattu’, observed that animals did not possess fundamental rights under the Constitution but as part of social and cultural policy, lawmakers had recognised the rights of animals by essentially imposing restrictions on human beings regarding how they dealt with animals.
The Court, based on the above judgments, concluded that while animal rights were necessary and must be respected, they could not trump the fundamental rights of human beings, and a balance must be struck for co-existence. The Court further pointed out that Sections 325 and 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), confirmed that the law safeguarded both human and animal life.
The Court appreciated the proactive measures proposed by the Government to address the pressing issue of stray dog attacks and opined that if the initiatives were implemented earnestly, it would substantially mitigate the problem at hand and ensure human life and safety. However, considering the decisions in M.R. Ajayan (supra) and People for Elimination of Stray Troubles (supra), and the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, the Court held that the Government’s decision to implement Rule 8 of the 2023 Rules to euthanize animals, as mentioned in Clause 9 of the letter, could not be permitted until further orders.
The Court also passed the following interim directions among others:
- The Court directed the Government of Kerala and all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State to implement the directions in M.R. Ajayan (supra) and In re: Bruno (supra), the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
- The Principal Secretary of the Local Self Government Department was directed to state the approximate population of the stray dogs in the State, the number of untoward incidents that took place during the last one year due to stray dog bites, including deaths, and number of patients who were administered with anti-rabies vaccine.
- The State Police Chief was directed to file a statement, within two weeks, stating the details of the crimes that were registered for offences under Sections 291 and 325 BNS in the last one year.
- The Member Secretary, KLSA, was directed to collect the pending claim petitions from the Registry of Justice Siri Jagan Committee and forward them to the District Legal Services Authorities having jurisdiction over the place where the incident occurred.
-
The Member Secretary, KLSA, was directed to constitute the District Level Committees in the 14 Districts to expeditiously adjudicate the claim petitions in accordance with law.
The Court has further listed the matter for 19-08-2025.
[Keerthana Sarin v. State of Kerala, WP(C) 21206 of 2025, decided on 28-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: M.R. Sarin, M.R. Sasith, P. Santhoshkumar (Karumkulam), Parvathi Krishna, Mahalekshmy P.S, Aiswarya Menon, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (GP-2), Asok M. Cherian, Addl. Advocate General, T.S.Shyam Prasanth, Senior G.P.
