I.Protection of Occupants Bill: The government has introduced two Bills, namely, the Rent (Repeal) Bill and the Protection of Occupants Bill which – if enacted – will have the effect of radically reforming the rent laws of our country. These two Bills were gazetted in September 2025 and tabled in Parliament on 20^th January, 2026. Although several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of these Bills, the Attorney-General informed the court that the two Bills would not be proceeded with in their present form, but would, instead, be referred to an expert committee for consideration. Accordingly, the petitions were withdrawn and the Supreme Court informed the Speaker that no formal determination would be made on the constitutionality of the said Bills in their present form. In parallel to these legal developments, the Ministry of Justice and National Integration has requested the members of the public to submit their comments, suggestions, or proposals regarding these Bills by 04^th March, 2026. The Minister of Justice has also assured that he would not take any steps in relation to the two Bills until this consultative process is completed. Therefore, a clear need and opportunity has arisen for a vibrant public discussion on the proposed legislation. The purpose of this lecture is to contribute to this discussion by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the two Bills in light of their historical, political, social and economic context.

II. The Rent Act and its objective

The Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 is a landmark piece of legislation which was introduced by Mr. Pieter Keuneman, the Minster of Housing at the time. The purpose of the Act was to confer significant protection on tenants through means such as restricting the increase of rent, giving security of tenure for the tenant and formalising the process of ejectment. The Rent Act of 1972 was a bold response to the lived realities of law in society. From a doctrinal perspective, the formation of a valid contract requires animus contrahendi (the intention to enter into a contract). However, it is widely acknowledged that parties to a contact may not be equal in terms of bargaining strength. One party may be stronger than the other, both economically and socially. In such situations, the function of the law is to protect the weaker party in his dealings with the stronger party. The assumption underlying the Rent Act was that the landlord was in a far stronger position than the tenant. Thus, the law was utilised to protect the interests of the more vulnerable party, namely the tenant. This objective of the Rent Act also closely aligned with the personal philosophy of Mr. Keuneman who was a prominent member of the Communist Party, of Sri Lanka. While the Rent Act was subsequently amended in 1976, 1977, 1980 and 2002, the original legislative scheme which safeguarded the rights of the tenants remained intact. What is proposed under the Protection of Occupants Bill, however, is a fundamental departure from the premises of that law.

III. Protection of Occupants Bill: An Overview

A close comparison between the Rent Act and the Protection of Occupants Bill shows that the safeguards afforded to the occupants under the latter (Clauses 3 (a), (b) and 4) are almost identical to the provisions of the former (Sections 13(1), 15 and 16). They both prevent the landlord from discontinuing or withholding the amenities previously provided to the tenant; damaging the premises to induce or compel the tenant to vacate the premises; and refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition. Yet, there is one crucial difference between the Rent Act and the Protection of Occupants Bill in relation to these safeguards. The rights and privileges enjoyed by a tenant under the Rent Act are not absolute. The tenant is being protected by the law only so long as he is complying with the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The 1972 Act, therefore, operates on the assumption that a tenant is honouring his contractual obligations while enjoying the rights under the Act. The conditional nature of these safeguards is amply evident from the provisions of the Act.

For example, section 15 of the Rent Act prevents the landlord from discontinuing amenities provided to the tenant ‘without reasonable cause’. Thus, the landlord is not prevented from discontinuing the amenities at all times but only without reasonable cause. The breach of the contractual obligations by the tenant would surely constitute a reasonable cause for the landlord to discontinue the amenities provided by him to the tenant. By contrast, the language used in the Protection of Occupants Bill does not indicate any limitations on the exercise of the safeguards afforded by the Bill except the preliminary requirement under clause 2 that undisturbed and uninterrupted occupation for three months is necessary for the application of the Bill. In other words, any person who has been in lawful occupation of premises for three months acquires an accrued right to enjoy the safeguards mentioned in the Bill unless he is stopped from doing so by a court order.

Consequently, even if the tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant may have come to an end or the tenant may be in breach of the terms of the agreement, or he is using the premises for a completely different purpose, his rights and privileges remain unaffected. Recourse to the judicial process is the only avenue available for the landlord to revoke the safeguards given to the tenant even when the latter has blatantly breached the terms of his contract. Reciprocity and mutuality are the fundamental concepts that underlie the Rent Act, as the tenant’s protection under that Act is dependent on the reciprocity of obligations. Protection of Occupants Bill, on the other hand, provides a unilateral framework for the tenants to assert their rights without paying due regard to the interests of the landlord.

It is also important to mention, at this point, that the Protection of Occupants Bill makes an artificial and unjustifiable difference between the right of a tenant not to be ejected and the other safeguards provided to him under the Bill. In terms of clause 5, the landlord shall not eject an occupant in contravention of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, or tenancy agreement. The necessary implication of this clause is that the landlord can eject an occupant in terms of the agreement between him and the tenant. Such a caveat is absent in the other provisions of the Bill that deal with the rights of an occupant.

Accordingly, there is a blanket prohibition on the landlord in discontinuing or withholding the amenities previously provided to the occupant or refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition. The landlord cannot take these actions even as per the agreement to which the tenant himself has given his consent. Apart from the absence of a rational basis to require the landlord to follow the tenancy agreement in ejecting a tenant but then to prevent him from doing the same with regard to the other less severe actions that he can resort to when the tenant is in breach of the contract, such a distinction also creates unfairness and inequality. Ejection of a tenant requires manpower and therefore, monetary resources as well. While a landlord who is capable of affording personnel to eject his tenant is benefited under the Bill, a landlord with modest means is left with no options other than a lengthy and cumbersome judicial process even when it is abundantly clear that his tenant is in violation of the tenancy agreement.

IV. Internal Inconsistencies in the Bill

The Protection of Occupants Bill is also poorly drafted and, thus, contains several internal inconsistencies. For example, clause 2 of the Bill provides that a person must be ‘in lawful occupation of a premises’ for him to invoke the provisions of the Bill. The term ‘occupation’ is defined in clause 13 which states that a person can be in occupation of a premises only ‘with the consent of the landlord.’ If a landlord has taken the actions mentioned above, such as discontinuing the amenities, the ‘aggrieved occupant’ is entitled to institute an action in a Court,

seeking the reliefs specified in that clause. Paradoxically, however, when a person goes to the Court to institute such actions, he is no longer ‘an occupant’ because all the eventualities against which a court order can be obtained, such as discontinuing amenities, refusing to maintain the premises, damaging the property, or ejecting the occupant, give an unmistakable indication that the person affected does not have the consent of the landlord to stay in the premises anymore. The withdrawal of the landlord’s consent is the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the aforementioned actions or omissions. Therefore, according to the definition of ‘occupation’ in clause 13, no person, who has faced the resistance of the landlord in the manner described in the Bill, can institute an action before the Court as he is no longer an ‘occupant’ with the landlord’s consent to stay in the premises.

V. A flawed rationale?

In addition to these structural flaws in the Protection of Occupants Bill, the rationale behind the same can also be questioned. It seems that the aim of the Bill is to bridge the gap between Haves and Have nots. It is assumed that the tenant is weaker than the landlord, both economically and socially. Thus, the Bill seeks to protect the rights of the weaker party i.e. the tenant from the arbitrary actions of the landlord. This is an extension of the political philosophy that influenced Mr. Keuneman to introduce the Rent Act. However, due to the unqualified protection given to the tenant, under the proposed new law, there is a serious question as to whether this political philosophy can truly be realised if the Bill is to be enacted in its present form. Suppose that there is a government servant who wants to build a house for his daughter. He may not be rich but manages to buy a land and build a house for his daughter with his salary. He may also want to rent the house until the daughter is married and collect the rent for his daughter’s marriage.

If the tenant, who lives in this house, stops paying the rent and also refuses to leave the property, there is nothing that this government servant can do except seeking a court order to eject him by spending more money and engaging in a lengthy trial that may take years to reach a final determination on the matter. He, of course, does not have the manpower to eject the tenant, but the Bill prevents him from engaging in unharmful actions, such as discontinuing amenities or refusing to maintain the premises, as well. He cannot collect the rent nor can he give the property to his daughter. In such a situation, the landlord becomes the victim as the Protection of Occupants Bill enables the tenant to abuse his rights. The theory of haves and have nots, which is supposed to be promoted by the Bill, breaks down at this point. The assumption that the have nots will be protected by this Act when they are pitted against the haves is simply not borne out when the provisions of the Bill are subject to pragmatic considerations of this kind.

VI. Impact on Banks

The Protection of Occupants Bill will also have a negative impact on the banking system of our country. Landlords often put their houses up as collateral for bank loans. Under the Recovery of loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act No. 4 of 1990, the bank is empowered to sell such property at a public auction if the landlord fails to pay the money back to the bank, with the stipulated interest. It will be extremely difficult for the bank to exercise this right if the Protection of Occupants Bill is enacted without any amendments. Under the provisions of the Bill, a tenant may refuse to leave the premise, despite the breach of his contractual obligations. The bank then cannot sell the property with a tenant as it lacks vacua possessio (vacant possession). In any event, no person will buy a house with a tenant, specially when he knows that the presence of the tenant cannot be resisted under the proposed law. Thus, the bank loses its money due to its inability to sell the collateral and by extension, the members of the public, who deposited their money in the bank, will also suffer that loss.

VII. Impact on Condominium Property

With the increase of population in the urban areas, condominium property has become a convenient option for people who are looking for housing in major cities like Colombo, Kandy and Galle. Unfortunately, the Protection of Occupants Bill is bound to have a detrimental impact on at least three parties in a condominium. First, if the tenant of an apartment in the condominium does not pay his rent, the landlord, who owns the condominium, and expects to earn a certain profit from it, is undoubtedly affected. If a considerable number of tenants refuse to pay the rent, it will be difficult for the landlord to continue with his business. Second, in every condominium complex, there is a management committee which looks after the amenities and other facilities given to the apartments in that complex. However, if a tenant breaches the terms of his contract, the managers will be in a precarious position where they are compelled, under the proposed law, to provide those facilities to someone who has not honoured his contractual obligations towards to the maintenance of the condominium. Finally, the other residents in the condominium complex will be subject to grave injustice as there is a tenant who is immune from any deterrence for the breach of his contract while they continue to pay the rent and fulfil other obligations. Therefore, the condominium industry will severely be affected in multiple ways if the Protection of Occupants Bill is enacted in its current form.

VIII. Judicial process

The proponents of the Bill argue that the aim of the Bill is simply to formalise the actions that can be taken by the landlord when the tenant is in breach of the terms of his contract. It is, therefore, pointed out that if a tenant goes to the Court against the actions of the landlord, such as discontinuing the amenities or refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition, the latter can justify his actions by referring to the breach of the tenancy agreement. In fact, clause 7 (4) lays down time limits for the completion of cases that arise under the proposed legislation. In an uncontested case, the Court is required to deliver the final judgment within 3 months and if the claims of the occupant are contested by the landlord, 9 months are given for the completion of the case. What these provisions seem to have overlooked is the backlog of cases in District Courts which will be dealing with such cases if the Bill is enacted. It is highly doubtful whether these time limits can be adhered to by the District Courts in the midst of other civil actions, such as testamentary cases, divorce cases and property disputes which occupy a significant portion of the Courts’ daily schedule. In any event, a person aggrieved by an order of the court can appeal and no time limits have been prescribed for the appeal process. Most importantly, under clause 6(2), an occupant can obtain interim relief to maintain the status quo of the premises. The effect of this provision is that even an occupant, who is in breach of his contract, can obtain an interim order to maintain the status quo and thereby prevent the landlord from enforcing the contract until the completion of the case. It is convenient for the lawmakers to lay down time limits for cases in a statute but as the previous experiences have shown, the implementation of such limits, in practice, is exceedingly difficult.

IX. Social Impact

The Protection of Occupants Bill is likely to have a catastrophic impact on the social fabric of our country. With all the above hazards discussed above, nobody will buy a house and rent it out anymore. Renting a house, under the proposed legislation, will become a considerable risk which only very few people will be prepared to take. Consequently, there will be a drastic reduction of the housing stock and the number of houses and apartments available will fall drastically. In response, there will be an inevitable rise in rent values. The objective of the Bill to protect the rights of the tenants is most certainly commendable. However, the function of the law is to balance competing interests in society without conferring undue advantage or disadvantage on a particular social group. As former Dean of the Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, has argued, making of law is an exercise in social engineering. Law must balance different interests in society and come up with an equitable solution. However, the proposed legislation leads to unfairness towards landlords, banks, dispositors and several parties in condominiums. From all these perspectives, impact of the proposed legislation is negative. The cumulative effect of all these consequences makes the Protection of Occupants Bill a counter-productive law which fails to achieve its purpose. Therefore, significant amendments are required before the proposed Bill is enacted into law.

Guest lecture delivered in the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo,
by Emeritus Professor G. L. Peiris
on 16 February, 2026

From Aloka the Peace Dog to Manula the School Icon — Sri Lanka’s love for dogs is wholesome and beautiful. But, behind every wagging tail lurks a public health crisis that kills silently, swiftly, and without mercy.

Aloka and Manula: Stars with a Message

Sri Lanka fell in love, not once, but twice in the span of a few weeks. First came Aloka, the serene, soulful dog who walked alongside venerable Buddhist monks during their peace walk in the USA, matching their calm stride with a dignity that moved the nation to tears. By nightfall, Aloka was not just a Sri Lankan celebrity he was an international sensation, a symbol of compassion and coexistence that transcended borders. The world watched, and the world smiled.

Then came Manula. from the schoolyard of Tissa Vidyalaya, in the Kalutara district. A photograph went viral – a scruffy, joyful dog apparently “performing” alongside students at the school’s annual inter-house sports meet band performance. Manula, a school mascot born not by appointment but by the daily love of students and teachers, became an overnight hero.

Both dogs share something beyond their celebrity. Both are native breeds, the ancient indigenous dogs of India and Sri Lanka, lean and hardy, shaped by centuries of co-evolution with humans on this subcontinent. Both roam freely. Both are adored. And both, unknowingly, sit at the centre of a public health conversation that Sri Lanka urgently needs to have.

When Aloka walked among the crowds, children rushed forward, small hands reaching out, eager to touch this gentle, famous dog. Manula, it is safe to assume, is petted by dozens of schoolchildren every single day. These are acts of love instinctive, natural, beautifully human. But they are also, without the right precautions, potentially dangerous.

The disease these encounters could transmit is rabies. And, in Sri Lanka, rabies is not a distant theoretical threat. It is the country’s number one public health emergency one that kills, maims, and drains the economy, all while remaining almost entirely preventable.

What is Rabies? Understanding the Invisible Enemy

Rabies is a viral disease caused by the Rabies lyssavirus, a member of the Rhabdoviridae family. It is one of the oldest known infectious diseases in human history, described in ancient Mesopotamian texts over four thousand years ago. It is also one of the most terrifying: once symptoms appear in a human being, rabies is almost universally fatal. The mortality rate after symptom onset approaches 100%.

Courtesy Today’s Veterinary Practice

The virus attacks the central nervous system the brain and spinal cord causing progressive and irreversible neurological deterioration. There are two clinical forms. Furious rabies, the more common form, produces the haunting symptoms most people associate with the disease: extreme agitation, hydrophobia (an irrational, violent terror of water), aerophobia (fear of air currents), hallucinations, excessive salivation, and aggressive behaviour. Paralytic rabies, sometimes called “dumb rabies,” progresses more quietly with gradual muscle paralysis, weakness, and eventual coma and is often misdiagnosed.

Death typically follows within two to 10 days of the onset of symptoms, caused by respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. There is no cure once the virus reaches the brain.

How Rabies Travels from Dog to Human

The transmission route is straightforward but sobering. The rabies virus lives in the saliva of infected animals. It enters the human body through a bite, or when infectious saliva contacts broken skin, a scratch, or mucous membranes such as the eyes, nose, or mouth. A lick from an infected dog on an open wound or a child’s eyes can, in rare cases, be sufficient.

Once inside the body, the virus travels along nerve fibres towards the brain at a rate of approximately 12 to 24 millimetres per day. This journey, called the incubation period, is deceptively long. It typically ranges from one to three months, though it can be as short as a week or as long as a year, depending on the site of the bite (bites closer to the head are more dangerous), the severity of the wound, and the viral load introduced.

This long incubation period is simultaneously a tragedy and an opportunity. It is a tragedy because people often forget about or dismiss a dog bite weeks later, believing they are safe. It is an opportunity because there is a window, a precious, life-saving window during which post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), a series of rabies vaccinations, can prevent the virus from reaching the brain and save the patient’s life with near-complete certainty.

What To Do Immediately If a Dog Bites You

Every second matters. The following steps must be followed without hesitation:

Step 1 — Wash the wound immediately and thoroughly.

This is the single most important first-aid measure. Wash the bite site vigorously with soap and running water for a minimum of 15 minutes. The mechanical action of washing physically removes viral particles. Research shows that thorough wound washing alone reduces the risk of rabies transmission by up to 50%. Do not panic. Wash, wash and wash.

Step 2 — Apply an antiseptic.

After washing, apply povidone-iodine, ethanol, or another virucidal antiseptic to the wound if available. Do not cover the wound tightly and allow it to breathe.

Step 3 — Go to hospital or a rabies clinic immediately.

Do not wait. Do not adopt a “wait and see” approach. Do not be reassured by the dog appearing healthy as healthy animals can shed the rabies virus before showing symptoms. Present yourself to the nearest government hospital or Anti-Rabies Clinic (ARC). Sri Lanka has a nationwide network of these clinics.

Step 4 — Begin Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP).

A doctor will assess the category of exposure and recommend the appropriate PEP regimen. This typically involves a course of intramuscular rabies vaccines administered over 14 to 28 days. For severe bites (Category III), Rabies Immunoglobulin (RIG) will also be injected into the wound site to provide immediate passive immunity. PEP is safe, effective, and free of charge at government hospitals in Sri Lanka.

Step 5 — Complete the full vaccine course.

This is where many patients fail. The vaccines work only if the complete schedule is followed. Missing doses can leave a person unprotected. PEP must be completed, regardless of whether the dog is found, tested, or appears healthy afterward.

One critical caution: if you are bitten on the face, head, neck, or hands areas with rich nerve supply close to the brain treat this as the highest emergency and reach a hospital as fast as humanly possible.

Rabies in the World: A Disease That Refuses to Disappear

Despite being entirely vaccine-preventable, rabies remains a significant global public health challenge, responsible for an estimated 59,000 human deaths annually, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO). This figure is almost certainly an undercount; many deaths in rural areas of Africa and Asia go unreported or are misattributed. The WHO estimates that 99% of human rabies cases are caused by dog bites.

Africa and Asia bear the overwhelming burden of the disease, together accounting for approximately 95% of all global rabies deaths. The countries worst affected include India which alone accounts for roughly 36% of global rabies deaths, with an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 fatalities per year along with Bangladesh, Ethiopia, China, and the Philippines. Shockingly, children, under 15 years of age, account for up to 40% of all rabies victims, largely because they are more likely to engage with stray dogs and and are less likely to report bites.

The economic cost of rabies, globally, is staggering. A 2015 study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases estimated the annual global cost of rabies, including lost lives, healthcare expenditure, and livestock deaths, at over USD 8.6 billion.

The encouraging news is that rabies can be eliminated. Several countries, including Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, and most of Western Europe, are certified rabies-free, having achieved this through sustained dog vaccination campaigns, stray dog management, and public education. The WHO, together with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), has set the ambitious target of zero human deaths from dog-mediated rabies, globally, by 2030.

South Asia: A Region Under Threat

South Asia represents one of the world’s most severe rabies hotspots. India’s enormous burden has already been noted. Bangladesh has made significant progress in recent years through mass dog vaccination, reducing human rabies deaths substantially. Nepal continues to struggle with high exposure rates, particularly in rural areas. Bhutan has made commendable strides with its dog vaccination programme.

Sri Lanka stands at a critical juncture. While the country has reduced its annual rabies death toll, significantly, over the decades, from hundreds of deaths per year, in the 1970s and 1980s, to the current figures of approximately 20 to 40 deaths per year, this progress masks a troubling reality: the disease has not been eliminated. And every death from rabies is entirely preventable.

Sri Lanka’s Rabies Crisis: Dogs, Schools, and a Cultural Paradox

Sri Lanka’s relationship with dogs is ancient and complex. In Buddhist tradition the faith of the majority of Sri Lankans compassion extends to all living beings. Feeding stray animals is considered an act of merit (pin). Harming an animal is considered morally reprehensible. This cultural and religious fabric has, over centuries, created a society extraordinarily generous to stray dogs and, unintentionally, a society extraordinarily vulnerable to the diseases they carry.

Across Sri Lanka, from Colombo’s busy urban streets to the most remote village in the deep south or the far north, stray dogs are everywhere. They sleep in temple grounds. They loiter near marketplaces. They gather at rubbish dumps. And they congregate in numbers that would astonish any visitor — at school gates, school canteens, and school playgrounds.

The school dog phenomenon is perhaps the most acute expression of Sri Lanka’s rabies vulnerability. Across the country, virtually every school, urban or rural, large or small, has its unofficial resident pack of stray dogs. These animals are fed daily by students sharing their lunch, by teachers, and by school staff. They become familiar, named, beloved – like Manula. And because they are beloved and familiar, children touch them, play with them, hug them, and allow the dogs to lick their faces, all without any thought of risk.

This is not carelessness. This is kindness, rooted in culture and religion. But it is kindness, without knowledge, and that gap between compassion and information is where rabies lives and kills.

The Economic and Social Toll of Rabies in Sri Lanka

The cost of rabies in Sri Lanka is far greater than the death toll alone suggests. It exacts a profound economic and social price that touches families, the healthcare system, and the broader economy.

Each year, Sri Lanka’s Anti-Rabies Clinics manage an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 dog bite cases. The provision of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis vaccines and immunoglobulin for these patients imposes a massive and recurring burden on the public health budget. The cost of a single PEP course, if purchased privately, runs into tens of thousands of rupees. Multiply this across over a hundred thousand patients annually, and the numbers become daunting.

Beyond direct medical costs, there is the cost of lost productivity. Dog bite patients require multiple hospital visits for vaccine doses. Working adults lose workdays. Farmers and labourers in rural areas, often the most vulnerable to dog bites, face income losses that can devastate already fragile household economies. Children bitten during the school day lose schooling time and, in some cases, develop lasting psychological trauma and cynophobia (fear of dogs).

Then there is the immeasurable social cost: a rabies death in a family is uniquely devastating. It strikes with grotesque swiftness once symptoms appear. Families watch helplessly as a loved one, often a child, deteriorates into terror, agony, and death within days. The psychological scars endure for generations. And the cruel irony is that this death, had the family sought treatment promptly, was entirely and easily preventable.

Protecting Yourself: How to Avoid Dog Bites

Awareness and behavioural change are the first and most important shields against rabies. The following practices, especially when taught to children, can dramatically reduce the risk of dog bites:

Never approach a dog that is eating, sleeping, or caring for puppies. These are the moments when even gentle dogs are most likely to bite defensively. Never run towards or away from a stray dog — sudden movements trigger the chase instinct. Stand still, avoid eye contact, and back away slowly if a dog approaches aggressively.

Never attempt to pet a dog through a fence or gate. Never reach into a dog’s sleeping space. Do not disturb a dog that appears ill or injured without professional assistance. A sick dog is an unpredictable dog.

Teach children at home and at school that while loving animals is wonderful, there is a safe way to do so. Children must understand that they should always ask an adult before approaching an unfamiliar dog, and should never put their faces close to a dog’s face, however friendly the animal appears.

Good Practices When Petting a Dog with an Unknown History

For a dog like Aloka or Manula – a dog beloved by many but with an unknown vaccination history – some simple, common-sense practices can significantly reduce your risk:

Always let the dog come to you rather than approaching it forcefully. Extend the back of your hand slowly, at the dog’s nose level, and allow the dog to sniff and initiate contact. If the dog turns away or shows signs of discomfort ears flattened, tail tucked, growling does not persist.

Pet the dog on the sides of the neck, chest, or back. Avoid the top of the head, initially, and never reach over a dog’s head with a stranger this can feel threatening to the animal. Do not allow a stray dog to lick your face, lips, eyes, or any open wound or sore. After touching any stray or unfamiliar dog, wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before touching your face or food.

If you have children with you, maintain physical supervision at all times. A child’s instinct is to rush forward, kneel down, and hug a dog all of which can be risky with an animal of unknown temperament and health. Channel the child’s love into safe, supervised interaction.

Being a Responsible Dog Owner in Sri Lanka

If you have a dog at home or if you are considering getting one, responsible pet ownership is not just an ethical commitment to your animal. It is a public health responsibility. Here is what every Sri Lankan dog owner must do:

Vaccinate against rabies every year, without exception.

A single dose of rabies vaccine for your dog costs a fraction of the cost of a human PEP course. Your vaccinated dog cannot transmit rabies. Vaccination is available at government veterinary offices island-wide, often at minimal or no cost during mass vaccination campaigns. There is no excuse to leave your dog unvaccinated.

Register your pet.

Dog registration with your local municipal or pradeshiya sabha authority is a legal requirement in Sri Lanka. Registration facilitates rabies vaccination tracking and helps authorities manage stray dog populations.

Sterilise your dog.

Population control is central to rabies elimination. Sterilised dogs do not reproduce, reducing the number of unowned, unvaccinated puppies on the street. Many government and NGO programmes offer low-cost or free sterilisation services.

Do not allow your dog to roam freely.

A dog that roams unsupervised can be bitten by other animals, exposed to rabies in the environment, and can itself bite others. Leashing and containing your dog within a secure space is a basic responsibility of ownership.

Monitor your dog’s health.

Know your dog. Watch for changes in behaviour, like sudden aggression, disorientation, excessive salivation, difficulty swallowing, or aversion to water and light. These can be early signs of rabies. If you suspect your dog has been bitten by an animal of unknown rabies status, contact a veterinarian immediately.

Educate your household and neighbours.

Share information about rabies, wound washing, and the importance of seeking medical attention after dog bites. In Sri Lanka, a significant proportion of dog bite victims, particularly in rural areas, do not seek treatment because they are unaware of the risk or fear stigma. Education saves lives.

Love Your Dog. Protect Your Community.

Aloka and Manula represent something genuine and beautiful about Sri Lankan character, a capacity for compassion, a willingness to extend kindness to creatures beyond our species, a recognition that every living being deserves love. These are not values to be abandoned. They are values to be celebrated, protected and informed.

The goal is not to make Sri Lankans fear dogs. The goal is to make Sri Lankans safer in the love they already give so freely. Wash your hands after petting a stray. Vaccinate your dog. Teach your children. Seek treatment immediately after a bite. These are small acts with life-saving consequences.

Aloka walked in peace. Manula played in joy. May every dog in Sri Lanka, stray or owned, campus icon or temple companion live in a country where they are loved safely, vaccinated consistently, and managed with the compassion and the wisdom that Sri Lanka’s great religious and cultural traditions have always, at their best, demanded.

And may every child who reaches out to touch a dog do so knowing they are safe because adults around them have done their duty.

by Dr. Niroshan Gamage
Director – Public Health Veterinary Services, Ministry of Health