Kerala High Court's Dual Strategy on Human-Animal Conflict: Stray Dog Pleas Move to Supreme Court While State-Level Snakebite Policy Takes Shape

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court is currently navigating two critical public safety issues rooted in human-animal conflict, employing distinct judicial strategies that highlight the multifaceted role of the judiciary in policy matters. In a significant development, the Court has transferred a batch of writ petitions concerning the stray dog menace to the Supreme Court for national-level adjudication. Concurrently, a different bench is actively overseeing the Kerala government's formulation of a comprehensive state-wide policy on snakebite prevention and management, underscoring a proactive, supervisory role.

These parallel proceedings offer a compelling case study in judicial intervention, demonstrating when a court may defer to a higher authority for a uniform national policy versus when it may take a hands-on approach to guide state-level executive action.

Stray Dog Menace: A National Concern Requiring a National Policy

In a move acknowledging the pan-India nature of the stray dog issue, Justice C S Dias of the Kerala High Court has directed the transmission of all related writ petitions to the Supreme Court. This decision, dated September 11, follows a directive from the nation's apex court, which recently expanded the scope of a case originating from the Delhi National Capital Region to a national level.

The Supreme Court, in that matter, stayed a High Court direction and indicated its intent to formulate a cohesive national policy to address the escalating conflicts between humans and stray dogs. Recognizing this, Justice Dias ordered the transfer of the case records, including those from Keerthana Sarin v State of Kerala and Connected Cases (WP(C) 21206/ 2025), to the Supreme Court.

This transfer consolidates litigation from various states, aiming to prevent contradictory High Court orders and to establish a standardized framework for animal control, vaccination, and public safety. The legal community across the country will now be watching the Supreme Court proceedings closely, as they are expected to result in binding guidelines that will impact municipalities, animal welfare organizations, and citizens nationwide.

Key Legal Implications:

• Judicial Federalism and Policy Centralization: The transfer represents a centralizing shift in judicial oversight on this issue. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests that fragmented, state-by-state solutions are deemed insufficient for a problem with nationwide social, public health, and animal welfare dimensions.
• Jurisdictional Carve-Out for Compensation: In a crucial distinction, Justice Dias has retained jurisdiction over petitions specifically seeking compensation for victims of stray dog attacks. This nuanced approach separates the broader policy question from the immediate matter of individual relief. It ensures that victims in Kerala can continue to seek remedy from the High Court without waiting for the national policy to be finalized, thereby safeguarding the right to redressal. As the Court noted, "the judge has retained cases pertaining to compensation payable to victims of stray dog attack."
• The Euthanasia Debate: The High Court had previously stayed the Kerala government's decision to implement euthanasia for stray dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practice and Procedures) Rules, 2023. This contentious issue will now be a central part of the Supreme Court's deliberations, balancing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act with public safety imperatives.

Amicus Curiae Deepak P has been assisting the court in these matters, which will now transition to the national stage.

Snakebite Management: A State-Specific Problem Demanding Local Solutions

In stark contrast to the stray dog issue, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, is taking a direct, supervisory role in the creation of a state-specific policy for snakebite management. This judicial oversight stems from a petition, Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala and Ors (WP(C) 32493/2019), which was initiated following the tragic death of a student from a snakebite in 2019.

The Court's persistent nudging has catalyzed significant executive action. Pursuant to earlier directions, a high-level meeting was convened on September 1, 2025, chaired by the Chief Secretary. The meeting saw participation from a wide array of stakeholders, including the departments of Forest, Health, Education, and Local Self-Government, alongside scientific bodies like the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology.

The bench took note of a draft circular prepared by the Health Services Department, which aims to establish comprehensive guidelines. The Court observed that while the specifics of the circular remain a matter of government policy, "what is essential is that a comprehensive guideline is put in place at the earliest to address the issue effectively."

Key Policy and Legal Considerations:

• Notifiable Disease Status: A groundbreaking proposal discussed during the meeting was the possibility of "exploring the notification of snakebite as a notifiable disease, subject to legal examination." If implemented, this would legally mandate the reporting of every snakebite case, leading to more accurate data collection, better resource allocation for antivenom, and a more robust public health response. This would create new legal duties for healthcare providers and public health officials.
• Local Antivenom Production: Another significant policy consideration is the collaboration with the Forest Department and the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology to "explore the production of antivenom for species of snakes beyond the commonly found ones." This addresses a critical gap in medical treatment, as antivenom is often only effective against the venom of the "big four" snake species. Developing polyvalent or species-specific antivenom for regional snake varieties could dramatically improve clinical outcomes and has significant medico-legal implications for standards of care.
• Judicial Catalyst for Governance: The proceedings exemplify the role of the judiciary as a catalyst for inter-departmental coordination and policy formulation. The Court's structured oversight, including setting deadlines and reviewing progress, has forced various government bodies to collaborate and produce a tangible policy draft. The counsel for the petitioner and the amicus curiae have been invited to provide suggestions, ensuring a participatory approach to policymaking.

The matter is scheduled for further consideration next Wednesday, where the Court will likely review the stakeholders' final reports on the draft circular.

Analysis: A Tale of Two Judicial Philosophies

The Kerala High Court's handling of these two issues showcases a sophisticated understanding of judicial power and its appropriate application.

• Stray Dogs - Deference to National Scope: The Court recognized that the stray dog issue involves a fundamental conflict of rights and laws applicable across India. Divergent High Court rulings could create a chaotic legal landscape. Therefore, deferring to the Supreme Court for a uniform policy is a prudent exercise of judicial restraint and a recognition of the apex court's role in settling law for the entire country.

• Snakebites - Proactive Supervision for Localized Action: In contrast, snakebite mortality is a public health crisis with distinctly local characteristics, dependent on regional biodiversity, healthcare infrastructure, and community awareness. Here, the High Court's active, supervisory role is not an overreach but a necessary intervention to ensure the state executive fulfills its constitutional duty to protect the life and health of its citizens. The court is not writing the policy itself but is ensuring that a policy is written and implemented effectively.

For legal practitioners, these cases offer valuable insights into the strategic deployment of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). They illustrate how the judiciary can act as both a national unifier of law and a localized enforcer of accountability, adapting its approach based on the nature and scope of the problem at hand.