Kerala has formalised its approach to one of the most contested aspects of stray dog management. The state government has approved a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that allows local bodies to euthanise stray dogs that are rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous and aggressive, but under a tightly layered oversight system designed to prevent misuse.
The SOP follows the Supreme Court’s May 19, 2026 order, in which a three-judge bench permitted local authorities to take legally permissible steps including euthanasia, while reaffirming that catch, sterilise, and vaccinate remains the legal baseline for managing stray dog populations.
What the SOP Actually Says
The procedure is not a free hand for local bodies to cull dogs. The government has been explicit that the SOP does not authorise indiscriminate mass killing. Every step requires veterinary involvement, documentation, and multi-level oversight.
The process begins with a mandatory registry of dogs identified as dangerous or aggressive. A local panel, headed by the respective local body chairperson, must then evaluate each case. These panels include an Animal Welfare Board member, a veterinary surgeon from the Animal Husbandry Department, and the designated project implementation veterinary officer.
Above the local panel sits a state-level monitoring committee chaired by the Principal Secretary of the Local Self-Government Department. Its members include the Principal Director of the LSGD, the State Public Health and Environment Officer, the Director of Animal Husbandry, the Director of Health Services, and a representative from the Animal Welfare Board. Local panels are required to submit timely reports to this committee, which is responsible for ensuring the regulations are not being misused.
In parallel, municipalities and panchayats are required to establish sterilisation centres and shelters for non-aggressive dogs. The court directive also mandates that dogs should not be released back into public spaces following sterilisation.
What Ministers and Officials Have Said
Local Self-Government Minister K.M. Shaji said the government has decided to act against dangerous stray dogs while strictly adhering to the existing protocol governing euthanasia of animals suffering from fatal diseases or posing a serious threat to public safety. He also flagged that Malappuram district currently has no functioning animal birth control (ABC) centre, calling it a matter of concern, and said the state would work to expand the number of ABC centres across Kerala.
Infrastructure on the Ground
Several urban bodies have already begun adjusting infrastructure in response to the court order and the SOP. The Thiruvananthapuram Corporation has started relocating stray dogs to shelters in collaboration with NGOs. A dedicated facility in Thrikkakara has been completed and is awaiting clearance from the Animal Welfare Board. Land has been identified in Angamaly, Kochi, and Kollam, with construction work at various stages.
The numbers, however, reflect how far there is still to go. Kerala told the Supreme Court it currently has just two dedicated dog shelters for the entire state. The court’s November 17, 2026 deadline for states to demonstrate compliance is now a live pressure point.
The Context Behind the Order
Kerala’s stray dog problem is not new, and neither is the legal battle around it. Dog bite cases in the state have run into the tens of thousands year after year. The Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights had previously approached the Supreme Court seeking euthanasia authorisation following a series of fatal attacks on children, including the death of an 11-year-old autistic boy in Kannur in 2023.
The state had also been spending heavily. Local bodies budgeted Rs 47.6 crore in 2024-25 alone for sterilisation, vaccination, and the Rabies-Free Kerala project. Despite that, only 15 AWBI-approved ABC centres were functional across 14 districts.
The approved SOP is the state’s attempt to operationalise the Supreme Court’s permission in a structured way, while keeping enough oversight in place to hold local bodies accountable for how they use it.