The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 10) struck down a circular, issued by the Centre in March, which urged states to ensure the prohibition on the sale, breeding, or keeping of 23 “dangerous” dog breeds, including pitbulls, rottweilers and mastiffs.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted the Centre could not have imposed the ban without an appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee, Live Law reported. It noted that “the composition of the committee is not in consonance with the Rule framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.”
Before this, the Karnataka HC had stayed the circular on March 19, while the Calcutta HC ordered a partial stay just two days later. The Delhi HC, too, on March 21, had sought the Centre’s response to a plea challenging the circular. Here’s what happened.
What does the circular say?
The March 12 letter from Dr. OP Chaudhary, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, directed chief secretaries of all states and UTs to ensure that no licences or permissions are issued for the sale, breeding, or keeping of dog breeds “dangerous for human life.”
It aimed to address concerns about human deaths caused by dog bites from “ferocious” breeds kept as pets.
The circular mentioned “breeds (including mixed and cross breeds) like Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka), Caucasian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka), South Russian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka), Tornjak, Sarplaninac, Japanese Tosa and Akita, Mastiffs (boerbulls), Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Wolf Dogs, Canario, Akbash dog, Moscow Guard dog, Cane corso, and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).”
Banning the rearing and importing of these breeds, the circular also directed dog owners to sterilise them. These recommendations came from an expert committee, formed under the Animal Husbandry Commissioner’s chairmanship. It was said to include various stakeholder organisations and experts as members.
However, the Karnataka and Calcutta HCs stayed the order while the Delhi HC asked for the Centre’s response.
Why did the Karnataka HC first stay the circular?
On March 19, a single bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna acted on a plea filed jointly by a professional dog handler and rottweiler owner (‘Shri King Solomon David & Anr v. Joint Secretary and Others’).
The petitioners claimed that the Centre’s expert committee did not consult any stakeholder before making its decision.
Justice Nagaprasanna said that until the Deputy Solicitor General of India produces “those documents that went into the decision-making of the impugned circular,” it “shall remain stayed,” but only in Karnataka. The HC also noted that the effect of the circular is pan-India and could lead to a “devastating effect”.
“The circular though refers to members of several stakeholder organization being a part of the Expert Committee, there are several who would not be heard,” the court said. For instance, petitioners claimed that the Kennel Club of India, the official body in the country for the registration of litter, wasn’t heard.
They added that identifying a particular dog breed as “ferocious and dangerous to human life” required “profound expertise” in identifying whether those breeds are appropriately trained. Several listed breeds are identical to other Indian breeds not part of the circular, the petitioners argued.
The Deputy Solicitor General of India argued that the circular was issued on the strength of a Delhi HC order from December 6. However, the court pointed out that the Delhi HC had unequivocally directed that “all stakeholders” must be consulted before taking action.
Last year, a law firm named Legal Attorneys & Barristers filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi HC to ban certain “dangerous” dog breeds, contending that they were banned in over 35 countries, including the UK and USA.
On December 6, 2023, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Centre to decide on the petitioner’s representation “expeditiously,” preferably within three months.
Why did the Karnataka HC quash the circular on “dangerous” dog breeds?
Although a detailed order of the Karnataka HC is expected by April 15, the court said that the Centre cannot impose a ban without an appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee, comprising all stakeholders. This includes certified breeding organisations.
“The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung has recorded the undertaking of Union of India that they would hear all stakeholders. It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders are heard,” Live Law reported the court as saying.
Further, it said a “blanket ban” on the 23 breeds would violate the rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Under the rules, a monitoring committee shall be responsible for planning and management of dog control programmes. It would constitute the local authority, which includes a commissioner or chief of the local authority as its ex-officio chairman, alongside representatives from the public health and animal welfare departments.
It would also include a veterinary doctor, a representative of the district Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and at least two representatives from animal welfare organisations operating within the local authority.
The committee can issue instructions for catching, transportation, sheltering, sterilisation, vaccination, treatment, and release of sterilised, vaccinated, or treated dogs. It can also take steps to monitor dog bite cases.
How did the Calcutta and Delhi HCs respond to the circular?
In ‘Tanmay Dutta vs. State of West Bengal’, the Calcutta HC partially stayed the Centre’s circular.
Dutta, a dog owner, contended that no law in India permits killing or banning dogs. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the Centre to file an affidavit containing details of the expert committee members and their credentials.
The court also found substance in the petitioner’s argument that the directive to sterilise dog breeds could have a fatal effect on them, particularly on puppies.
“It is rightly pointed out that pets have been directed to be mandatorily sterilised, which is not sanctioned by any norm of animal sciences before a particular age. As such, even young puppies may have to be sterilised, which may prove fatal to them,” the court said, according to a Bar and Bench report.
However, the court added that the stay didn’t apply to the circular’s directive to ban the import and sale of such dog breeds due to the “commercial connotation” of such activities.
In his plea, Dutta also argued that although the Centre’s circular was issued according to the December 6, 2023 direction of the Delhi HC, it never ordered a ban.
Recently, the Delhi HC heard a plea challenging the March 12 circular. In ‘Sikander Singh Thakur & Ors vs. Union of India’, the petitioner argued against the sterilisation mandate.
“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behaviour, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions,” the plea said.
On March 21, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad sought a response from the Centre on the plea.
