The High Court passed the order after noting that only government bodies were consulted before banning 23 breeds of “ferocious dogs”.
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Central government to issue a public notice and consider objections raised by various stakeholders before issuing any notification to ban the species of “ferocious dogs” [Canine Welfare Organisation v Union of India & Anr + Connected matters].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that since it is not possible to give oral hearing to each dog owner, the government should issue a notice on its website as well as a national daily and invite objections.
“Objections filed in response to advertisement/publication on the website shall be examined and decided by the respondents before issuing the final notification,” the Court ordered on April 16.
The Division Bench passed the order as it disposed of a bunch of petitions challenging the Central government’s decision to ban 23 breeds of “ferocious dogs”.
The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the Government of India had issued a circular on March 12 asking all States and Union Territories to ban 23 breeds of ‘ferocious dogs”
The species which are to be banned are:
- 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
- Japanese Akita
- Mastiffs
- Rottweiler
- Terriers
- Rhodesian Ridgeback
- Wolf dogs
- Canario Akbash dog
- Moscow Guard dog
- Cane Corso
- Every dog of the type commonly known as Ban Dog (or Bandog).
In an order passed on April 10, the Karnataka High Court had set aside the circular.
On April 16, the Delhi High Court took note of the submission by the counsel appearing for the Central government that other than government bodies, no private stakeholder was heard before issuing the circular.
It also noted that the Karnataka High Court had already set aside the circular.
The petitioners argued that the government decision was in violation of the Constitution of India as the Department of Animal Husbandry lacks the power to issue such a circular that is to be implemented by the states.
It was contended that the circular was also in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Rules made under the Act as they do not provide for sterilisation of pet dogs.
