Govt banks on panel's watch as dog menace deepens
Though the Supreme Court ruled in May 2024 that future compensation claims could be addressed by constitutional courts or other competent forums, it did not specify about the future of the existing mechanism in Kerala. As a result, when the committee paused its functioning citing a lack of clarity, public concerns mounted, especially with the state witnessing an alarming increase in dog bite cases.
Data presented in the assembly paints a grim picture.
In 2024 alone, 3,16,793 people sought treatment in govt hospitals after being bitten by dogs. It is suggested that the actual number could go over six lakh if those treated in private hospitals are also accounted for. Thiruvananthapuram district leads with 50,870 reported bite cases, followed by Kollam (37,618), Ernakulam (32,086) and Palakkad (31,303). Even hilly regions like Idukki (10,003) and Wayanad (5,719) have not been spared.
The staggering stray dog population is at the heart of the issue. As per the latest available estimate presented in the assembly—based on the 2019 Livestock Census—Kerala is home to 2,89,986 stray dogs. That's nearly one stray dog for every 12 people in the state.
The Siri Jagan committee was originally constituted to streamline compensation for victims and ensure humane responses to the stray dog crisis. Animal welfare groups have long warned that unchecked growth in the stray population, combined with inadequate sterilisation efforts and poor waste management, has created a situation in which both people and animals are at risk.
The continuation of the committee offers some relief to victims, but pressure is mounting for lasting solutions and not just post-incident payouts. There have been calls for bold legislative interventions. In a detailed social media post, bureaucrat N Prasanth argued that Kerala can enact laws suited to its growing public safety crisis as animal welfare is a subject under the concurrent list of the Constitution.
He suggested that the state could bring in targeted legislation such as a 'Kerala Public Safety and Aggressive Animals Regulation Act', which would allow for the classification and control of dangerous animals, including aggressive stray dogs. He also highlighted legal provisions available under Section 13 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the 1967 Kerala Prevention and Control of Animal Diseases Act, which, if properly notified and clarified, can empower authorities to cull rabies-suspected or violent animals in hotspot zones.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court quashes FIR against shuttler Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case
The Supreme Court Monday quashed the FIR against badminton player Lakshya Sen, his family members, and his coach over allegations of fabricating the birth certificates of Sen and his brother. Granting the relief, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar said that continuation of criminal proceedings in the matter would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. On February 19, 2025, the Karnataka High Court rejected the petitions by Sen, his family and coach, U Vimal Kumar, following which they approached the top court. Issuing notice in the matter, the SC had on February 25, 2025, stayed further proceedings in the matter. The complainant in this case, who runs a badminton academy, alleged in 2022 that Vimal Kumar, a badminton coach at the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy, colluded with the parents of Lakshya Sen and his brother and forged birth certificate documents in 2010 to allow their participation in tournaments restricted to specific age groups. The complainant alleged that birth certificates were fabricated to claim government benefits after participating in the tournaments. He produced certain documents obtained by way of RTI in support of his argument. In 2022, the police registered a case under sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged record) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the investigation was not concluded after the Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay. While refusing the petition to quash the proceedings against Sen and others, the HC observed that the authenticity of the documents produced before the court was not challenged. 'When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings. There are sufficient materials that are placed before the Court by the complainant, which are the documents that were obtained under the Right to Information Act from the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitions,' it said. Lakshya Sen, a former junior World No 1, has won medals at various international events, including the World Championships and Commonwealth Games, and is also a recipient of the Arjuna Award. His father D K Sen is also a badminton coach.
New Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
New Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order on West Bengal OBC list
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Calcutta High Court's decision that had stalled the implementation of a revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) notified by the West Bengal government. "Prima facie, the high court order seems to be erroneous," said a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria while hearing the appeal of the state government. On June 17, the Calcutta High Court ordered an interim stay on notifications issued by the state government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. At the outset, the bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, and said, "This is surprising. How can the High Court pass such an order? Reservation is part of the executive function." The state had prepared the new list after the high court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list.
