Stray Dogs Creating Menace, Bonafide Dog Lovers Should Obtain License From Local Authorities To Protect & Keep Them: Kerala High Court

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that bonafide dog lovers, instead of writing in print and visual media should come forward to help the local government institutions to protect them.

The Court stated that bonafide dog lovers could approach the local authorities with applications for obtaining licences to keep stray dogs in tune with the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules and Kerala Municipality Act. It said:

“I am of the considered opinion that the dog lovers need not write and speak for the dogs in print and visual media, but they should come forward to protect these dogs if there is bonafides in their words along with the Local Self Government Institutions. The bonafide dog lovers can be given licence if they are ready to protect the stray dogs in tune with the provisions of ABC Rules 2023 and other statutory provisions."

Recognizing the threat and attack of stray dogs towards small children, youngsters and even old people, it stated that stray dogs should be protected but not at the cost of the lives of human beings. It added:

“As I mentioned in the beginning, the stray dogs are creating a menace in our society. School children are afraid to go alone to their school because of the apprehension that they will be attacked by stray dogs. If any action is taken against the stray dogs, the dog lovers will come and fight for them. But I am of the considered opinion that human beings should be given more preference than stray dogs. Of course, the barbaric attack on stray dogs by human beings also should not be allowed.”

The residents of Muzhathadam Ward in Kannur District have approached the High Court aggrieved by the actions of an animal lover named, Rajeev Krishnan.

It is submitted that Muzhathadam Ward is a thickly populated residential area having several houses within a short distance. Whenever any stray dog is attacked, injured or ill, Rajeev who is also a resident of Muzhathadam Ward brings it home to take care of it and then keeps them in his house.

The specific allegation was that several dogs were kept in the house of Rajeev and that he was unable to nurture them properly, leading to it becoming very unhygienic, filthy, and foul-smelling causing nuisance to the people of the locality.

They also allege that dogs bark during the day and night in high volumes causing noise pollution, wander in the Municipality and children were scared of being affected by diseases and health hazards from dogs.

Thus, the petitioners have approached the Court seeking urgent action against Rajeev for preventing the keeping of stray dogs at his house.

On the other hand, Rajeev submitted that his family loves animals and he feeds animals and takes care of them in his own property. He submitted that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Kannur also takes his help. Further, it was submitted that dogs were not a threat to human beings after vaccination and sterilization.

The Bench stated that the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India V. People For Elimination of Stray Troubles has clarified that there was no bar for High Courts to consider this issue and pass orders.

It stated that as per Animal Birth Control Rules 2023 (ABC Rules), the local authority has a responsibility to protect stray dogs. Court said that the rules provide that local authority shall be responsible for the deworming, immunisation, and sterilisation of street dogs. It also provides rules regarding the geo-tagging of dogs, euthanasia, resolution of complaints regarding dog bites or rabid dogs etc.

Analyzing the provisions from Sections 435 to 438 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Court said that a person cannot keep any dog without a license obtained from the Secretary. It also provides that animals shall not be kept by persons on their premises if it causes nuisance to others.

The Court stated that when an animal lover comes to save stray dogs, the local self-government authorities could give them a license and they could ensure that ABC Rules and provisions of the Municipality Act were complied with.

It stated that bonafide dog lovers would be given a licence if they were ready to protect and help stray dogs as per the provisions of the law.

The court referring to the number of deaths due to rabies in India stated that many children especially from rural and poor families were killed by dogs. “The number of cases or deaths in various years goes as follows: 733 in 2020, 105 in 2019, 116 in 2018, 111 in 2017, 93 in 2016, 113 in 2015, 125 in 2014 and 132 in 2013”, added the Court.

The Court stated that the menace of stray dogs is an issue in Kerala also and appreciated the work done by dog lovers like Rajeev.

It found that Rajeev had not obtained a licence for keeping stray dogs on his premises from the authorities. It stated that Rajeev should be aware of the concerns of petitioners because of the nuisance of keeping large numbers of dogs in an unhygienic manner.

The Court thus directed Rajeev to approach the Corporation of Kannur to get a licence for keeping the stray dogs on his premises. It directed the Corporation to impose stringent conditions as per the ABC Rules and Kerala Municipality Act. It also directed the Corporation to remove stray dogs from his premises if no licence application was filed on time.

The Court also suggested the State Government to frame guidelines or schemes in consultation with the Union government to give licences to individuals who were dog lovers and were interested in maintaining stray dogs along with the local government institutions as per ABC Rules 2023. 

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala for taking appropriate actions.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Prajit Ratnakaran, E Mohammed Shafi, K R Avinash (Kunnath), Abdul Raoof Pallipath

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Government Pleader B S Syamanthak, Senior Advocate K K Chandran Pillai, Advocates Phijo Pradeesh Philip, S Ambily, Jikku Seban George, Standing Counsel M Meena John

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 159

Case title: T M Irshad v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Case number: W.P.(C.) Nos. 36807 of 2015 & 22330 of 2017

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment