The Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying from taking a final decision on the ongoing process of collecting objections and comments from a cross section of people on classifying certain breeds of dogs as “ferocious and dangerous to human life” and consequently banning their import and breeding.
Justice Anita Sumanth ordered that the Ministry could continue to collect the objections and comments but should not take any final decision on the issue till June 14. Addtiional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan was expected to take instructions by then on issuing a clarification with respect to a public notice issued on May 2, 2024 inviting comments on the subject.
The interim order was passed on a writ petition filed by Kennel Club of India (KCI) challenging the public notice. Senior Counsel R. Srinivas pointed out that a Joint Secretary to the Ministry had initially written a letter to Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories on March 12, 2024 to ban several breeds after classifying them as “ferocious and dangerous to human life.”
The ban was imposed on the following breeds: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd, Caucasian Shepherd, South Asian Shepherd, Tornjak, Sarplaninac, Japanese Tosa, Akita, Mastiffs (boerbulls), Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Wolf dogs, Canario, Akbash, Moscow Guard, Cane Corso and every dog of the type commonly known as Bandog.
The March 12, 2024 letter was challenged before various High Courts in the country and Justice Sumanth herself had stayed its operation on March 29, 2024. Subsequently, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the letter in toto after finding that it had been issued on the recommendations of a committee which did not consist of even a single dog expert, Mr. Srinivas said and added that the ban does not remain in operation anymore.
Despite the court ruling, the Ministry’s May 2 public notice had made a reference to the ban imposed under the March 12 letter and then called for objections and comments on the subject. This reference was bad in law, the senior counsel said and contended that the Ministry should start the process afresh by constituting a fresh committee consisting of dog experts, and without any reference to the previous decision.
Concurring with him, Justice Sumanth told the ASG that the Ministry ought to have begun the process with a clean slate and should not have referred to a letter that had been quashed by the court. She wanted the law officer to obtain instructions as to whether the Ministry was willing to file an affidavit in court or issue a corrigendum clarifying that the March 12 decision would have no bearing on the present process.
