The Kerala High Court has temporarily stayed the state government’s decision to euthanise stray dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023. A bench led by Justice C. S. Dias deferred the implementation of Clause 9 of the state’s recent government order, which invoked Rule 8 of the 2023 Rules to justify euthanising stray dogs that were allegedly posing a threat to public health or were terminally ill. The court clarified that this rule could not be used to implement mass culling of stray dogs until further directions were issued.
Rule 8 permits euthanasia of animals only under limited conditions, such as when an animal is mortally injured or suffers from an incurable disease, or when it poses a clear risk to public health. The rule requires certification from a registered veterinary practitioner before euthanasia can be administered. The Kerala government had attempted to rely on this provision to begin euthanising stray dogs across the state. However, the court noted that this move could not override the existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) program, which is the statutory mechanism for managing stray dog populations in India.
In its order, the court referred to previous decisions, including Ajayan M. R. v. State of Kerala, and the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Troubles. These rulings emphasize that the ABC Rules, which mandate sterilization and immunization as the primary methods for stray dog population control, must take precedence over euthanasia. The court reiterated that the 2023 Rules do not repeal or nullify the ABC Rules, and both sets of regulations must be read in harmony, giving due priority to the established animal welfare protocols.
Acknowledging the growing public concern over the rising number of dog bite incidents, the High Court directed the state government to provide data on the number of such incidents, related deaths, FIRs filed, and compensation paid so far. The court appointed Senior Advocate Deepak P. as amicus curiae to assist in adjudicating the matter further. A detailed hearing has been scheduled for August 19, 2025, during which the legality and scope of the government’s order will be closely examined.
The court also took note of the state’s proposal to form district-level committees to process compensation claims from victims of stray dog attacks. These committees are to consist of representatives from the District Legal Services Authority, the District Medical Officer, and the Local Self-Government Department. The court directed that pending compensation-related petitions should be transferred to these committees and ordered the issuance of standardized guidelines for their functioning. The authorities were instructed to submit a compliance report within one month.
Throughout the hearing, the High Court underscored the need to strike a careful balance between safeguarding public safety and upholding animal welfare laws. It emphasized that while the welfare of animals is a constitutionally recognized principle, it must not come at the cost of human life and dignity. The court clarified that both human rights and animal welfare must coexist, but when there is a direct conflict, the safety and rights of citizens must take precedence.
The High Court made it clear that any mass euthanasia efforts would need to undergo thorough judicial scrutiny to ensure they comply with the constitutional guarantees and statutory obligations currently in place. The bench observed that Rule 8 of the 2023 Rules should not be used indiscriminately or misapplied in a way that bypasses the legally mandated ABC framework. The court stressed the importance of administrative responsibility and cautioned against knee-jerk measures that could undermine long-term animal welfare policies.
In its deliberations, the court cited the alarming statistics submitted by the state government, which reported over one lakh dog bite incidents and multiple fatalities over a span of six months. These figures highlighted the pressing public health issue posed by the increasing stray dog population. Nonetheless, the court maintained that effective governance requires more than immediate punitive action—it demands adherence to the legal framework and constitutional values.
By pausing the implementation of the euthanasia directive, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of judicial oversight and statutory processes in dealing with sensitive and complex issues like stray animal management. The court’s approach aims to ensure that public safety is addressed with compassion and legality, without sacrificing the core tenets of animal welfare or constitutional integrity.
This interim order represents a cautious but firm step towards maintaining legal order and social balance. It provides the state with an opportunity to revisit its strategy and adopt solutions that are humane, lawful, and sustainable. The final decision, expected after the hearing in August, will determine whether the government’s plan to implement Rule 8 for euthanising stray dogs can proceed within the bounds of legality and necessity. Until then, the focus remains on protecting both human lives and animal rights through a structured, legally sound approach.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.