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
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya people in India refugees or illegal migrants? Supreme Court to decide
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine whether Rohingyas staying in the country were refugees or illegal migrants before going ahead with hearing a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. IA Rohingya woman holds her baby boy's hand at a refugee camp in Bangladesh. (AP FILE/REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) 'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. Rest is consequential,' a bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said. 'If they are refugees, they are entitled to certain protections under law. If not, they are illegal migrants and should be deported back to their country.' The four questions framed by the court in the Rohingya batch of cases included, 'whether Rohingya entrants are entitled to be declared as refugees and if so, what protection emanates from the rights they are entitled to; whether Rohingyas are illegal entrants and if government of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.' There were two consequential issues also that were framed by the court. These were: 'Even if Rohingya entrants are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.' Lastly, it said, 'Whether Rohingya entrants who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided with basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, education, etc.' The court had taken up 22 cases involving the deportation of Rohingya who were either in detention camps or claimed refugee status. Among these, the bench sought to segregate cases related to Rohingya migrants as a single batch. The other cases involving other foreigners were directed to be grouped into a separate batch to be handled separately. As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing, as some petitions spoke about the deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal, appearing for the central government, submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingya people and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first. The non-Rohingya matters, he added, seek interpretation of the Foreigners Act. The bench agreed, saying, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing in multiple petitions, said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingya people in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need to provide them facilities in their camps on par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered granting refugee status to them. Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that the Rohingya people who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they were being persecuted in their country. Gonsalves further referred to a case filed by the wife of a foreigner facing detention in Assam which concern Rohingya and non-Rohingya foreigners. In that case, Gonsalves showed orders passed by the court to expedite the deportation process despite the fact that Myanmar was unwilling to take these persons back. In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Rohingya people in Delhi, the top court refused to adopt a piecemeal approach in deciding individual cases and called for all cases pending on the issue to be listed together. The Centre has been opposing the maintainability of these petitions, citing the Supreme Court's order passed in April 2021. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law and held that while the right to life and liberty is available to even non-citizens, the right not to be deported is ancillary but concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of India, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) only to citizens.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
The law of driving on Indian roads
India has the highest absolute number of road accident fatalities in the world; this moderates somewhat when seen per capita, but remains a significantly high figure — higher than, say, China, which has a comparable population but higher vehicle density. Road accident deaths are also easily preventable. So, the Supreme Court's observation that sudden and unannounced braking is negligence, particularly if it endangers others, could be read as a response to the high human toll. The Supreme Court's observation that sudden and unannounced braking is negligence, particularly if it endangers others, could be read as a response to the high human toll. (Hindustan Times) However, if the observation, made in a compensation order becomes the basis for wider application, it is likely to come up against the practical difficulties of driving on Indian roads, where one can spot the entire historical trajectory of man's engagement with motion in a single reel — starting with pedestrians, handcarts, bullock cards, bicycles, autos, cars, buses and trucks, many often driving on the wrong lane or in the wrong direction. Speeding, tailgating, jaywalking, lane-changing without signalling, and a raft of other traffic infractions are all too common — as is dereliction of personal safety conduct. Add to this animals straying onto the roads and potholes and craters, and sudden braking becomes both an unavoidable hazard of and survival tactic for driving on Indian roads. It will be no minor challenge to penalise sudden breaking, that is, if the apex court's observation becomes the law. The way forward is to crack down on infractions that prompt sudden braking. Severe penal action is the only way to enforce road rules, and no authority should be spared from action, including when they fail to maintain roads in conditions suitable for safe driving and walking. But such action must also factor in the ground realities.
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
Quoting from a 1977 Supreme Court judgment, which held that 'adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error', the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged in Rajkot in 2010 against a then minor for alleged rape. The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010. Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.' The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.' The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity. The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'. The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…' The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'. The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
