The circular issued by the government seeks to ban 23 dog breeds considered dangerous for human lives. However, it has faced legal challenges in various high courts across the country.
In Karnataka, the High Court stayed the implementation of the circular, halting its enforcement until further orders from the court.
Similarly, the Calcutta High Court issued a partial stay on the circular just two days after the Karnataka HC’s decision. The partial stay implies that certain aspects of the circular are halted temporarily while others may still be enforced.
In Delhi, the High Court has also taken cognizance of the matter and has sought a response from the Centre regarding a plea challenging the circular’s validity.
In the past week, there have been significant developments regarding the Centre’s circular aimed at banning the sale, import, and ownership of 23 foreign dog breeds, which include breeds such as rottweilers, wolf dogs, and pitbull terriers.
On Tuesday (March 19), the Karnataka High Court issued a stay on the implementation of the circular, effectively halting its enforcement until further notice from the court.
Shortly after, on Thursday, the Calcutta High Court followed suit by ordering a partial stay on the circular. This partial stay implies that certain aspects of the circular will not be enforced temporarily, while others may still be implemented.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court has also taken a stand on the matter by seeking a response from the Centre regarding a petition challenging the validity of the circular. This indicates that the Delhi High Court is actively considering the legal implications and potential issues raised by the circular.
The Centre’s circular, issued on March 12, not only prohibits the sale, import, and keeping of these specific dog breeds but also mandates sterilization for those who currently own them as pets. These measures have sparked debate and legal challenges, prompting interventions from multiple high courts across the country.
In a letter dated March 12, Dr. OP Chaudhary, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, issued directives to the chief secretaries of all states and union territories. The letter emphasized the need to prevent the issuance of licenses or permissions for the sale, breeding, or ownership of dog breeds deemed “dangerous for human life.”
The objective of this directive was to tackle the issue of human fatalities resulting from dog bites inflicted by breeds considered “ferocious,” which are often kept as pets.
The circular listed various breeds, including mixed and cross breeds, such as Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, and others, that were to be banned for rearing and importing. Additionally, it mandated the sterilization of these breeds for existing dog owners. These recommendations stemmed from an expert committee, chaired by the Animal Husbandry Commissioner, which purportedly included stakeholders and experts as members.
Despite these directives, two High Courts intervened by issuing stays on the circular’s implementation. In the case of the Calcutta High Court, the stay was granted through an interim order.
In the case of ‘Tanmay Dutta vs. State of West Bengal’ heard by the Calcutta High Court, an interim relief was granted partially staying the implementation of the Centre’s circular.
The petitioner, Tanmay Dutta, who is a dog owner, argued that there is no existing law in India that sanctions the killing or outright banning of dogs. Responding to this contention, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the Centre to submit an affidavit providing information about the members of the expert committee involved in formulating the circular, including their credentials.
The court also acknowledged the petitioner’s argument regarding the potential adverse impact of sterilization directives on dog breeds, especially on puppies.
“It is rightly pointed out that pets have been directed to be mandatorily sterilized, which is not sanctioned by any norm of animal sciences before a particular age. As such, even young puppies may have to be sterilized, which may prove fatal to them…” the court remarked.
However, the court clarified that the stay did not extend to the circular’s directive of prohibiting the import and sale of such dog breeds, citing the “commercial connotation” associated with these activities.
In his plea, Dutta also argued that although the Centre’s circular was issued based on a Delhi HC order from last year, the HC never explicitly ordered a ban.
The previous Delhi HC order stemmed from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a law firm named Legal Attorneys & Barristers. The PIL sought a ban on certain “dangerous” dog breeds, arguing that they had been banned in over 35 countries, including the UK and USA.
On December 6, 2023, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Centre to promptly decide on the petitioner’s representation, preferably within three months.
More recently, in the case of ‘Sikander Singh Thakur & Ors vs. Union of India’, the Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the March 12 circular. The petitioner argued against the mandate for sterilisation, stating that the notification lacked credibility and legitimacy due to the absence of established scientific protocols or comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behavior, temperament, and associated risk factors.
On March 21, a bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad sought a response from the Centre on the plea.
The Karnataka High Court stayed the circular on March 19 in response to a plea jointly filed by a professional dog handler and a rottweiler owner (‘Shri King Solomon David & Anr v. Joint Secretary and Others’). The petitioners claimed that the Expert Committee, which recommended the circular, did not consult any stakeholders before making its decision.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, the single bench judge, ordered the stay until the Deputy Solicitor General of India produces the documents that were considered in making the circular. The court emphasized that the circular’s impact is nationwide and could have a devastating effect on the 23 breeds listed.
The Deputy Solicitor General of India argued that the circular was issued based on the Delhi High Court’s December 6 order. However, the Karnataka HC pointed out that the Delhi HC had clearly directed consultation with “all stakeholders” before taking action.
The court noted that while the circular mentioned members of various stakeholder organizations in the Expert Committee, there were many who were not consulted. For example, the Kennel Club of India, the official body for registering litters in the country, claimed it was not heard.
The petitioners argued that designating certain dog breeds as “ferocious and dangerous to human life” required expertise in identifying whether those breeds were appropriately trained. They also highlighted that several listed breeds were identical to other Indian breeds not included in the circular.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on April 5, reiterating the Delhi HC’s directive to consult “all” stakeholders rather than just a few.
