Human life prevails over animal rights; authorities must enforce ABC Rules and cruelty provisions to control stray dogs, balancing public safety with humane treatment, while establishing interim compensation mechanisms and judicial oversight until statutory rules are finalized.

ORDER :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The batch of writ petitions highlight the serious issue of recurring and alarming increase of stray dog attacks in the State of Kerala and the compensation claims of the victims.

2. The writ petitions are filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) W.P.(C) No.21206/2025 is filed to direct the 8^th respondent to consider Ext.P3 complaint due to the injuries suffered by her in an attack by a group of stray dogs.

(ii) W.P.(C) No.17627/2025 is filed to quash Ext.P7 order directing the petitioner ― Panchayat to pay compensation to the 7^th respondent due to the death of her daughter in a stray dog attack.

(iii) W.P.(C) No.45100/2024 is filed to direct the 1^st respondent to continue to provide infrastructure facilities and the funds for the continued functioning of the Justice Siri Jagan Committee, and the local authorities to disburse the compensation payable to the victims.

(iv) W.P.(C) No.17269/2024 is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to take immediate steps to remove the dogs from the 4^th respondent’s property.

(v) W.P.(C) No.2709 of 2024 is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate action to remove 60 stray dogs from the 4^th respondent’s house.

(vi) W.P.(C) No.13554 of 2024 is filed to quash Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner ― Panchayat to pay compensation to the 2^nd respondent-victim on account of the injuries suffered by him in a stray dog attack.

(vii) W.P.(C) No.15312/2020 is filed to quash Ext.P4 letter directing the petitioner ― Municipality to pay compensation to the 3^rd respondent ― victim on account of the injuries suffered by him in a stray dog attack.

(viii) W.P.(C) No.18013/2017 filed to quash Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner ― Panchayat, to pay compensation to the 2^nd respondent ― victim, on account of the injuries suffered by him in an accident due to a stray dog.

3. The issue at hand is not novel. In Ajayan M.R and others v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (5) KHC 752] and In re: Bruno (Suo Motu) Public Interest Litigation proceedings initiated by the High Court in the matter of Executive and Legislative Inaction of the State Government in the Matter of Protection of Animal Rights v. Union of India and others [2022 (6) KHC 52], the Division Benches of this Court have issued comprehensive directions to combat the stray dog menace rampant in the State. Notwithstanding the directions, the situation has worsened over the years.

4. The statistics furnished by the State reveal a grim picture: there are over three lakh stray dogs in the State. In the past six months alone, sixteen lives have been lost, and more than one lakh persons have suffered injuries in stray dog attacks. The exponential increase in population of stray dogs is primarily attributable to the failure of stakeholders to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 , the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 and 2023, and the directions passed by this Court from time to time.

5. Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, and more importantly, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely a right to survive, but a right to live a dignified and meaningful life. The state and its instrumentalities have a corresponding duty to ensure that the rights guaranteed to persons under Article 21 are not infringed.

6. In Animal Welfare Board of India and another v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and others [2006 KHC 561], a Division Bench of this Court has unequivocally held that the right to life of a human being shall take precedence over the statutory rights afforded to animals. While humane treatment of animals is mandated, it cannot override h