Delhi HC asks Centre to file response on plea challenging ban on 23 dog breeds

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought a response from the central government on a plea challenging a circular asking all states to ban 23 dog breeds posing dangers to humans.
Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a notice to the Centre. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 9. This petition was filed by Sikander Singh Thakur and others through advocates Nikhil Palli and Kshitij Pal.
However, the court, while admitting the plea, said the government circular was a policy decision.
Justice Prasad said, “We will examine the portion of the circular that mandates that even the current owner shall get their such pets sterilised.”
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the circular was ‘without rationale’.
“A high court issues a notice in this matter while the Karnataka High Court has stayed the circular (banning 23 dog breeds). A detailed response must be filed,” the counsel for the petitioner argued.
The petitioner challenged the circular issued on March 12 by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, asking all states and union territories to ban 23 ‘ferocious’ dog breeds.
The circular sought a ban on the import, breeding, and selling of the breeds, including Pitbull Terrier Tosalnu/ American Staffordshire Terrier Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentine, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka)/ Caucasian
Shepherd Dog (ovcharkaJ South Russian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka) Tornja~ Sarplanina~ Japanese Tosa and Akita/ Mastiffs (boerbulls) Rottweiler Terriers/ Rhodesian Ridgebac~ Wolf dogs/ Canario/ Akbash dog/ Moscow Guard dog/ Cane Corso/ and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).
The notification or order also imposed a mandate on current owners of the said breeds to forcibly sterilise their pets, thus severely restricting their rights as pet owners and imposing undue hardships on responsible pet caregivers, the plea stated.
It added that the notification lacks scientific basis and is devoid of any research or reports supporting the purported cause of reducing dog bites or enhancing public safety.
The absence of substantiated scientific evidence or justifiable empirical data backing the classification of specific dog breeds as ‘ferocious’ renders the notification arbitrary ab initio, the plea contended.
“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behavior, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and
legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions,” it stated.
“Consequently, the arbitrariness inherent in the notification’s formulation casts serious doubt upon its validity and warrants judicial review to ensure adherence to constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness, and evidence-based policymaking,” the plea added