'Dogs Only Become Aggressive When They Are Hungry Or Thirsty' : Kerala High Court Directs To Designate Feeding Spaces For Community Dogs

The Kerala High Court urged the State to initiate expeditious steps to set up designated feeding spaces particularly for the community dogs in the area during the hearing of the suo motu matter initiated after a dog was brutally killed by three youth in the State. 

A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P Gopinath directed so while observing that "dogs only become aggressive when they are hungry or thirsty. They are just looking for food and water. If we can identify feeding spaces for them, half the problem will be solved."

The Court remarked so during the hearing that ensued on Friday. The matter was part hard last week and it resumed today. 

While addressing the concern of animal welfare in the State, it was suggested by the Bench that setting up feeding centres for dogs would ensure they do not attack colony residents while simultaneously remove the fear of canines among them. 

However, the Court directed that only those organisations or volunteers registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India shall be permitted to carry out feeding or birth control activities. The State was further directed to issue a circular urging registration of pets by their owners with the local bodies and obtaining a licence expeditiously.

Meanwhile, amicus curiae Advocate Suresh Menon informed the Bench that at present, there were only 7 animal welfare organisations and four private shelters in the State registered with AWBI. 

As per his submission, the Bench also agreed that only the injured or sick canines can be kept at the shelters for treatment and care, while the others may be sterilised and released. 

The Court's attention was brought to the fact that besides these registered shelters, there were 17 shelters run by private people at their residences. Nonetheless, he submitted that these private shelters were harassed by local residents and the Municipal authorities.

To this, the Court responded - 'while altruism may be their motive and it is commendable, we also have to look into whether these private shelters are suitable to accommodate community dogs. A balance has to be struck."

The Bench suggested that all the community dogs can be captured from Thrikkakkara and relocated at some private animal shelter or the cattle shelter run by the local body for the time being. However, it was emphasized that the Municipality shall bear the incidental charges borne by these private organizations in doing the same.

Advocate Uma Devi, Counsel for DAYA, an animal welfare organization, had earlier suggested accommodating some of the community dogs at her client institution. However, in Friday's hearing, she submitted that their facilities were completely occupied, but offered to facilitate three trained dog handlers to capture the canines professionally. 

Accordingly, the Bench directed the State and the Municipality to take instructions regarding setting up feeding centres and rehabilitating the dogs in private shelters.

In today's hearing, the amici curiae Senior Advocate S Ramesh Babu and Advocate T.C. Suresh Menon informed the Court that the recovery of over a hundred dog carcasses from the municipal yard in Thrikkakkara reveals the miserable failure of the State in implementing the animal birth control programme effectively.

Other Submissions In The Report:

The report they filed today entailed the inaction on part of the executive and legislature in the State to protect animal rights. 

It revealed certain important information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Kudumbashree District Mission, according to which forThrikkakkara municipality where a massacre of community dogs had taken place, there was no data available as to how many dogs were subjected to the ABC programme and what are the expenses incurred for it by the municipality.

It was also submitted that there was no facility within the Municipality for the implementation of the ABC programme.

But the report agreed with the Court's suggestion that sterilization programmes have the potential to reduce behavioural concerns apart from reducing the number of community dogs in a scientific way.

It also expressed disappointment in how the local self-governments were doing too little to establish shelters within their territorial limits. Therefore, the report suggested that every local self-government to cover the costs of sterilization and treatment for community dogs carried out by NGOs and other organizations.

The Court on a previous hearing had directed animal owners to register their pets with the respective local self-government bodies. The suo moto proceedings initiated by the Court for the protection of animal rights in the State was renamed to In Re: Bruno in memory of the helpless dog brutally killed by three youth who are currently facing trial for their criminal acts. 

Case Title: In Re Bruno v. State of Kerala