THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The euthanasia protocol introduced by the state government for stray dog management has come under legal scrutiny with People for Animals (PFA) questioning the definition of ‘aggressive’ and ‘dangerous’ stray dogs, alleging that the guidelines leave space for arbitrary culling of strays.
According to the guidelines, a stray dog is considered violent or vicious if it has executed an unprovoked attack resulting in a human being suffering a bite or an unprovoked attack on more than two livestock or stray animals. The animal rights group has moved the HC challenging the order, claiming that it would lead to arbitrary killings of strays.
PFA member Sreedevi S Kartha said the definition of aggressive or dangerous dogs is inadequate. “The protocol has introduced its own definition of an aggressive or dangerous dog without clearly adhering to the safeguards laid down under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules. We have filed a petition and hope the HC makes the necessary intervention.”
In the petition, PFA has also questioned the protocol’s treatment of symptoms associated with rabies. “The protocol creates serious loopholes by treating symptoms as proof of rabies. Drooling, disorientation, circling, and neurological symptoms can occur in several conditions, including canine distemper, neurological disorders, and head injuries. Rabies itself cannot be confirmed merely by observing such symptoms,” she said.
PFA has argued that a dog displaying aggressive behaviour should not automatically be classified as habitually aggressive.
The local self-government department (LSGD) has defended the protocol, maintaining that it was framed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions and the ABC Rules.
“The protocol is not against the rules; we have formulated it grounded entirely in established legal parameters,” said LSGD principal director Divya S Iyer.