Latest news with #KeralaHighCourt
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Explained: Kerala govt's plans to ‘euthanise' diseased stray dogs
The Kerala government will soon roll out mobile sterilisation units in 152 blocks and permit the 'euthanasia' of seriously ill animals, amid concerns over recent dog attacks on humans and rabies-linked deaths in the state. Local Self-Government Minister M B Rajesh said on Wednesday (July 16) that before the portable Animal Birth Control (ABC) units are deployed across the panchayat blocks, a pilot study will be conducted in Nedumangad. 'These portable units are more cost-effective than permanent ABC centres,' he told a press conference. The minister has invoked provisions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023, for allowing euthanasia. What do the rules say, and what is the situation in Kerala? Number of stray dog attacks in Kerala in recent years In the first five months of 2025, stray dogs (both vaccinated and unvaccinated) had bitten as many as 1.65 lakh people, and the attacks led to 17 deaths in Kerala. If the data is extrapolated for the year, it shows a consistent rise from 2023 (3.06 lakh cases) and 2024 (3.16 lakh cases). Last week, while considering a petition seeking compensation for a stray dog attack, the Kerala High Court had asked why it could not be declared a state-specific disaster. Overall, 37 lakh cases of dog bites were reported in India in 2024, according to a Lok Sabha response earlier this month. According to the 2019 livestock census, Kerala has 2.89 lakh stray dogs and 8.36 lakh domesticated canines. At 20 lakhs, Uttar Pradesh had the largest population of stray dogs in India. The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, notified by the Union Government under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, laid out ABC programs for sterilising stray dogs in the country. However, many states, including Kerala, have not implemented it effectively. The Kerala government has cited 'impractical conditions'' and people's resistance against establishing ABC centres as major hurdles. The state only has 15 ABC centres, and is attempting to set up 18 more in the coming months. Due to people's protests against such centres in their localities, not a single ABC centre was opened in the Idukki, Wayanad, Malappuram and Pathanamthitta districts. According to government data, in the last fiscal, only 15,767 stray dogs were sterilised and 88,744 vaccinated. Kerala has also been seeking an amendment to the ABC rules, saying that several conditions listed under them are impractical. For instance, a stray dog caught at a location for sterilisation should be released at the same place after the sterilisation surgery. Even the apex court had ordered that relocation cannot be permitted. Further, rabies-infected dogs can only be vaccinated or sterilised. The rules also mandate state-of-the-art operation theatres, post-operative care facilities, trained veterinary doctors and other staff. A sterilised dog should be put under observation at an ABC centre for six days, under the rules. What 'euthanasia' means for animals The state government stated that since there is no provision in the ABC rules for killing stray dogs, it invoked Section 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandry Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2023. The provision allows the Centre or state government to euthanise any diseased animal that can spread the disease. A registered veterinary practitioner is to certify that the animal is mortally injured or in such a physical condition that 'it shall be cruel to keep it alive.' Consent would have to be obtained from the owner or custodian of the animals in writing. It further details the procedure, including blindfolding the animal, and administering a sedative if found to be 'anxious or… if there are concerns over the safety of the animal or the handler'. However, the decision could come under legal challenge, as several animal welfare organisations have criticised such orders in the past. It also raises the question of consent in the case of stray dogs. Why the stray dog population growth remains unchecked According to experts in animal husbandry industries, the increased stray dog numbers can be traced to poor waste management. Although the state government has a well-oiled system in the Haritha Karma Sena for collecting non-biodegradable waste from houses and establishments, there is no foolproof mechanism for managing waste from poultry shops and slaughterhouses. Stray dog populations flourish by feeding on such waste, as well as food waste. Besides, many households began keeping pet dogs during the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns, only to later abandon them.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Contempt of court case: HC terms as not maintainable an appeal filed by Kerala University Syndicate member
The Kerala High Court has termed as not maintainable an appeal filed by R. Rajesh, a Syndicate member of Kerala University and a former MLA, in a contempt of court case that had been registered against him earlier this month on the charge that he used 'insinuation and intemperate language' in a Facebook post he made on July 6 about the High Court Bench that heard petitions regarding the education sector. He had been directed to appear before the court on July 23, on the basis of suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated by a Single Bench of the HC. On Monday, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. heard counsels for both the HC and Mr Rajesh. The court's counsel said that for an appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act, the impugned order ought to be inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt. In this case, only charges were framed and no conviction or punishment was made so far. The hearing occurs only when the respondent appears before the court pursuant to a notice issued to him. Mr Rajesh's counsel contended that a Single Bench cannot straight away frame the charges. He can only direct it to be placed before the appropriate Bench. Only the designated judge or the Chief Justice can initiate contempt action, he argued. In his FB post, written in Malayalam, Mr. Rajesh had said the 'Centre was trying to destroy and control the State's higher education sector. Chancellors are tasked solely to politically control universities, while they appoint Vice-Chancellors even without considering their qualifications. The HC Bench that hears university cases deliberately appoints staunch Sangh Parivar supporters...', his post said.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Kerala education minister stands firm on school timings despite religious opposition
PALAKKAD: Kerala General Education Minister V Sivankutty on Monday hardened his stance against religious and community organisations interfering in the affairs of educational institutions and said school timings across the state would not be decided to suit their convenience. He clarified that neither his department nor he had any role in the school timing adjustments in the state in the current academic year. "There are several religious and community outfits in the state. We cannot fix the timing of our schools and examinations of children as per their convenience," he told reporters here. To justify the new timings of state schools, the minister also cited the examples of school timings of Kendriya Vidyalayas in the state and those in Gulf nations. "We will try to convince everyone about this. A discussion will be held with representatives of school managements on Wednesday," he said. Sivankutty also said as per the rules and procedures of the Right to Education, there should be 220 school working days. According to General Education Department sources, the discussion will be held in the chamber of Sivankutty in Thiruvananthapuram on July 23 afternoon. One representative from each management is expected to attend the meeting, where the minister will outline the reasons behind the government's revision of school timings, they said. Sivankutty recently clarified that school timings cannot be changed to "accommodate a particular community", as the government must consider the interests of lakhs of students. He stated that the decision to extend school hours by 30 minutes was based on the Kerala High Court directive, and anyone aggrieved by it can seek legal remedies. As per the revised schedule, high school students (classes 8 to 10) will spend an additional 15 minutes each in the morning and afternoon on all working days except Fridays to help schools meet the mandated 1,100 instructional hours annually. The minister's clarification comes in the wake of mounting criticism from Muslim organisations, including the Sunni clerical body Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, which contends that the "extended hours will interfere with religious education." Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
AI tools not for decision making: Kerala HC guidelines to district judiciary on AI usage
In a landmark move, the Kerala High Court has come out with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policy which specifically prohibits usage of such tools for decision making or legal reasoning by the district judiciary. The High Court has come out with the 'Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary' for a responsible and restricted use of AI in judicial functions of the district judiciary of the state in view of the increasing availability of and access to such software tools. According to court sources, it is a first-of-its-kind policy. It has advised the district judiciary to "exercise extreme caution" as "indiscriminate use of AI tools might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data security risks and erosion of trust in the judicial decision making". "The objectives are to ensure that AI tools are used only in a responsible manner, solely as an assistive tool, and strictly for specifically allowed purposes. The policy aims to ensure that under no circumstances AI tools are used as a substitute for decision making or legal reasoning," the policy document said. The policy also aims to help members of the judiciary and staff to comply with their ethical and legal obligations, particularly in terms of ensuring human supervision, transparency, fairness, confidentiality and accountability at all stages of judicial decision making. "Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, and rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings shall prevail," the policy document issued on July 19 said. The new guidelines are applicable to members of the district judiciary in the state, the staff assisting them and also any interns or law clerks working with them in Kerala. "The policy covers all kinds of AI tools, including, but not limited to, generative AI tools, and databases that use AI to provide access to diverse resources, including case laws and statutes," the document said. Generative AI examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Deepseek, it said. It also said that the new guidelines apply to all circumstances wherein AI tools are used to perform or assist in the performance of judicial work, irrespective of location and time of use and whether they are used on personal, court-owned or third party devices. The policy directs that usage of AI tools for official purposes adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and protection of confidentiality, avoid use of cloud-based services -- except for the approved AI tools, meticulous verification of the results, including translations, generated by such software and all time human supervision of their usage. "AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgement under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgement or any part thereof lies fully with the judges," it said. It further directs that courts shall maintain a detailed audit of all instances wherein AI tools are used. "The records in this regard shall include the tools used and the human verification process adopted," it said. Participating in training programmes on the ethical, legal, technical and practical aspects of AI and reporting any errors or issues noticed in the output generated by any of the approved AI tools, are the other guidelines mentioned in the policy document. The High Court has requested all District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates to communicate the policy document to all judicial officers and the staff members under their jurisdiction and take necessary steps to ensure its strict compliance.>
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
AI tools not for decision making: Kerala HC guidelines to district judiciary on AI usage, ETCISO
In a landmark move, the Kerala High Court has come out with an Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage policy which specifically prohibits usage of such tools for decision making or legal reasoning by the district judiciary. The High Court has come out with the 'Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary' for a responsible and restricted use of AI in judicial functions of the district judiciary of the state in view of the increasing availability of and access to such software tools. According to court sources, it is a first-of-its-kind policy. It has advised the district judiciary to "exercise extreme caution" as "indiscriminate use of AI tools might result in negative consequences, including violation of privacy rights, data security risks and erosion of trust in the judicial decision making". Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox. All about ETCISO industry right on your smartphone! Download the ETCISO App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles. "The objectives are to ensure that AI tools are used only in a responsible manner, solely as an assistive tool, and strictly for specifically allowed purposes. The policy aims to ensure that under no circumstances AI tools are used as a substitute for decision making or legal reasoning," the policy document policy also aims to help members of the judiciary and staff to comply with their ethical and legal obligations, particularly in terms of ensuring human supervision, transparency, fairness, confidentiality and accountability at all stages of judicial decision making."Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, and rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings shall prevail," the policy document issued on July 19 new guidelines are applicable to members of the district judiciary in the state, the staff assisting them and also any interns or law clerks working with them in Kerala."The policy covers all kinds of AI tools, including, but not limited to, generative AI tools, and databases that use AI to provide access to diverse resources, including case laws and statutes," the document AI examples include ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Deepseek , it also said that the new guidelines apply to all circumstances wherein AI tools are used to perform or assist in the performance of judicial work, irrespective of location and time of use and whether they are used on personal, court-owned or third party policy directs that usage of AI tools for official purposes adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness, accountability and protection of confidentiality, avoid use of cloud-based services -- except for the approved AI tools, meticulous verification of the results, including translations, generated by such software and all time human supervision of their usage."AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgement under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgement or any part thereof lies fully with the judges," it further directs that courts shall maintain a detailed audit of all instances wherein AI tools are used."The records in this regard shall include the tools used and the human verification process adopted," it in training programmes on the ethical, legal, technical and practical aspects of AI and reporting any errors or issues noticed in the output generated by any of the approved AI tools, are the other guidelines mentioned in the policy High Court has requested all District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates to communicate the policy document to all judicial officers and the staff members under their jurisdiction and take necessary steps to ensure its strict compliance.
