Bonafide Dog Lovers Urged To Obtain Licenses for Stray Dog Protection, Says Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently tackled the contentious issue of human-animal conflict surrounding stray dogs. The court observed a stark divide among the public, with one faction advocating for the euthanasia of stray dogs and another vehemently opposing such measures in defense of the animals.

According to a report of Live Law, 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 emphasized that genuine dog enthusiasts have the option to seek licenses from local authorities to care for stray dogs, adhering to the regulations outlined in the Animal Birth Control Rules and the Kerala Municipality Act. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan stressed that rather than merely advocating for the welfare of stray dogs through media channels, sincere dog lovers should actively engage with local self-government institutions to ensure their protection. The Court expressed the view that individuals demonstrating genuine concern for stray dogs could be granted licenses if they are willing to actively safeguard the animals in accordance with the provisions laid out in the Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023 and other relevant statutory laws.

Residents of Muzhathadam Ward in Kannur District have petitioned the High Court, expressing grievances regarding the actions of a local animal lover identified as Rajeev Krishnan. They argue that Muzhathadam Ward, characterized by densely populated residential areas with numerous houses in close proximity, faces a recurring issue whenever stray dogs are injured, attacked, or fall ill. Rajeev, also a resident of Muzhathadam Ward, consistently brings these distressed dogs to his home for care and subsequently houses them there.

The residents lodged a specific complaint, stating that Rajeev's house harbored numerous dogs, which he failed to adequately care for, resulting in an environment that was unhygienic, filthy, and emitting foul odors. This condition, they asserted, posed a nuisance to the community residing in the vicinity. Additionally, they alleged that the dogs incessantly barked both during the day and night, contributing to noise pollution. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about the dogs wandering freely within the municipality, potentially posing health risks to the residents, particularly children, who feared contracting diseases or encountering other health hazards associated with the presence of stray dogs.

Hence, the petitioners have approached the Court seeking immediate intervention against Rajeev, aiming to prohibit him from harboring stray dogs on his premises. Conversely, Rajeev countered by asserting that his family harbors a genuine affection for animals, providing them with sustenance and care within the confines of their property. He also mentioned his collaboration with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in Kannur, underscoring his commitment to animal welfare. Additionally, Rajeev argued that vaccinated and sterilized dogs pose no threat to human beings, thus challenging the notion that their presence constitutes a hazard to public health and safety.