The State Police underplayed the attack on ED officers and shield Sheikh, who is a highly political influential person, the Court said.
The Kerala High Court recently opined that human lives should be given preference over the lives of stray dogs [TM Irshad & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.]
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan pointed out that the threat of stray dogs affects daily life of citizens with children and the elderly being the most affected.
“School children are afraid to go alone to their school because of the apprehension that they will be attacked by stray dogs. It is a habit for several citizens to go for a morning walk. Morning walk is also not possible today in certain areas because of the apprehension of attacks from 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,” the Court opined.
The Court noted that increasing instances of human-dog conflict in the State have been leading to law and order problems but that commenting on it often gets painted as inhumane.
““Barking dogs seldom bite” is an English proverb. But in reality, it may not be correct in our state at least…If we read the newspapers, we can see regular news in which there is an attack from stray dogs towards small children, youngsters and even old people,” the Court observed.
However, the Court made it clear that attacks on stray dogs must also be prevented and opined that local self government authorities should grant licenses in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (ABC Rules) to animal lovers who come forward to save the dogs.
“While giving licence, the local authorities can impose conditions in tune with the provisions in ABC Rules 2023. This should be in addition to the duties of Local Self Government Institutions to protect the stray dogs as per ABC Rules. 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 Court said in its judgment.
It also urged the State and Central governments to frame guidelines or laws for granting licenses to individuals interested in protecting stray dogs.
The judgment was rendered on two petitions moved by residents of Muzhthadam ward in Kannur.
They claimed that they were severely inconvenienced due to the activities of another resident, one Rajeev Krishnan who cared for injured stray dogs in his house. They alleged that over time, the number of strays increased with Krishnan’s house and the surrounding areas becoming extremely unhygienic and unsafe due to the presence of dogs.
They submitted that even though a meeting held at the district collectorate had come up with a plan to address the issue, Krishnan refused to implement the suggestions.
This prompted them to move the High Court seeking orders to ensure that the plan is implemented and the issues posed by the dogs are addressed.
Krishnan countered the petitions contending that he has been maintaining the dogs within his property and that since they are all vaccinated and sterilized, they pose no threat to human beings. He submitted that there have been no instances of dog bites by any of the dogs maintained by him and assured the Court that he would ensure that the neighbors face no inconvenience from all nine dogs that live on his property at present.