Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging a notification dated 12-03-2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, a division bench comprising of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J., stayed the operation of the impugned notification until 30-04-2024, or until further order, except for the prohibition on import and selling of the prohibited dog breeds. The Court held that further investigation is warranted to assess the validity of the notification and its impact on animal rights and pet ownership.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a dog breeder, challenged a notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, dated 12-03-2024. The impugned notification, based on recommendations from an Expert Committee, prohibited the importing, breeding, selling, and keeping of certain dog breeds, including cross-breeds, citing concerns about their potential danger to human life. The local bodies were directed to enforce the ban and sterilize existing pets of the prohibited breeds.
The petitioner argued that the notification violates animal rights and the right to keep pets, as it lacks scientific basis and consultation with stakeholders. The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court’s directive did not authorize the recommendations made in the notification. The petitioner argued that the classification of dog breeds as dangerous was arbitrary and not supported by research. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the notification was based on expert recommendations and prioritized human safety over animal rights.
The Court noted that the impugned notification does not reflect any yardstick of classifying certain breeds of dogs as dangerous for human life. “In fact, the very expression “dangerous for human life” is vague and there is no rationale in the notification to apply such tag to the particular dog breeds mentioned therein.” The Court further noted that it is not clear from notification as to who were the members of the so-called Expert Committee on the report of which the decision was taken. “Moreover, it appears that there has been no prior research work before classifying certain particular dog breeds as ferocious and dangerous for human life.”
The Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the notification’s potential impact on dog breeds and noted that “the dogs which have already been kept as pets have also been directed to be mandatorily sterilized, which is not sanctioned by any norm of animal science before a particular age of the quadrupeds. As such, in terms of the circular, even puppies of a few months or days will have to be sterilized, which will be fatal for them.” The Court also found substance in the petitioner’s submission that breeding of dogs involves several stages and depending on the stage of prior mating, thereafter, pregnancy and subsequent other steps, “it might be extremely dangerous for the concerned dogs to stop the process of breeding at several stages”.
The Court granted a stay on the operation of the notification until 30-04-2024, or until further order. Importantly, the prohibition on import and selling of the prohibited dog breeds remained in effect. The Court instructed the Breeders to ensure the safety and well-being of the dogs affected by the notification. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to submit a comprehensive report disclosing the members of the Expert Committee, their credentials, and the basis for the classification of dog breeds as dangerous. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 08-04-2024 under the heading “Upgraded Matters”.
[Tanmoy Dutta v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2815, order dated 21-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Sk. S. Haque, Ms. Akahsha Chopra, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Counsel for the State
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Ms. Amrita Pandey, Counsel for the Respondent 3 and 4
