{"id":294154,"date":"2023-06-08T11:00:29","date_gmt":"2023-06-08T05:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=294154"},"modified":"2023-06-14T17:51:25","modified_gmt":"2023-06-14T12:21:25","slug":"gauhati-high-court-dog-meat-consumption-naga-custom-sets-aside-ban-commercial-sale-nagaland-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/gauhati-high-court-dog-meat-consumption-naga-custom-sets-aside-ban-commercial-sale-nagaland-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cDog meat consumption is an ancient Naga custom\u201d: Gauhati High Court sets aside ban on sale of dog meat"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Gauhati High Court:<\/b> While deliberating over the alleged violation of the fundamental rights when the petitioners\u2019 livelihood was threatened after a Government Order issued by the Chief Secretary of the Nagaland Government, banned the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets; the bench of Marali Vankung, J.<\/b>*, quashed the impugned order on the ground that Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the impugned order dated 04-07-2020 when Section 30<\/a> of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006<\/a> provides for appointment of a Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for an efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under the Act.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/b> Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had issued the circular dated 06-08-2014, stating that the Regulation 2.5 of the FSS Regulation, 2011 has defined animals, carcass and meat wherein sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) has defined \u201canimal\u201d. The slaughtering of animals of any other species other than the one listed in sub regulation 2.5.1(a) is not permissible under the FSS Act, 2006<\/a> and Regulation, 2011. Pursuance to this circular, the impugned order of ban was issued. Regulation 2.5.1(a) of FSS Regulation, defines \u2018animal\u2019 which includes- Ovines; Caprines; Suillines; Bovines; and poultry and fish.<\/p>\n

The impugned notification dated 04-07-2020 was then notified, which stated that the slaughtering of any other species other than the ones listed in sub-Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the 2011 Regulation is not permissible under the FSS Act and Regulation. The notification stated that in order to regulate the safety of food articles safe for human consumption, ban on slaughtering and sale of dog meat in the State of Nagaland is necessary. Thus, under the provisions of FSS Act and Regulation, the commercial import and trading of dog and dogs\u2019 market and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine-in restaurants were. Violation of the ban order would attract liability under Sections 428<\/a> & 429<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> and Section 11<\/a> of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Contentions-<\/b><\/p>\n

Petitioners:<\/b> The counsels for the petitioners submitted that FSS Regulation, 2011 has not expressly or impliedly prohibited slaughter of any specific animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a) for human consumption. Likewise, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006<\/a> has also not prohibited the slaughter of animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a). It was argued that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the provisions.<\/p>\n

The petitioners further submitted that it is the culture and custom of the Nagas to eat dog’s meat which has been mentioned in some to the earliest ethnographical and anthropological accounts of the Nagas. The same has been practiced since long which is duly published and should be taken notice of by the Court. It was further submitted that dog’s meat is consumed widely in Kohima and the right of the petitioners and their customers to eat dog’s meat, forms a part of their right to privacy.<\/p>\n

It was contended that FSS Act, 2006<\/a>, gives an elaborate definition of \u201cfood\u201d under Section 3(j) and \u201csubstance\u201d under section 3(zw). The petitioners stated that the meaning of food under the FSS Act, 2006<\/a> would mean any substance which is intent for human consumption and would mean a solid natural substance which is the meat of any animal, which is not prohibited to be killed for human consumption by any law for the time being in force, thus, dog meat falls under the definition of food as specified in the FSS Act, 2006<\/a>. It was further argued that neither the FSS Act, 2006<\/a> nor the FSS Regulation, 2011, specify that animals not included in the definition of \u2018animal\u2019 under regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Regulation, 2011 are prohibited from being slaughtered for human consumption. Non-inclusion of dogs or any other animal under the regulation does not mean that the consumption of dog meat has been prohibited by the Regulation.<\/p>\n

The petitioners also stated that the Food Authority of India is not empowered to narrow the scope of the FSS Act, 2006<\/a> and the Food Authority has not been given the authority to issue any prohibition order banning the consumption of dog meat under the FSS Act or the FSS Regulation, 2011. The impugned order dated 04.07.2020 has no legal backing and is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Articles 19<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. The petitioners are being denied the right to consume the food of their choice and to earn their livelihood when import \/export permit dated 03.06.2020 has been issued by the Kohima Municipal council for the petitioner to trade in dog meat.<\/p>\n

Respondents:<\/b>Per contra<\/i>, the respondents submitted that the impugned order is verbatim replication of Regulation 2.5 of the FSS Regulation, 2011 and therefore, not an interpretation of the regulation as claimed by the petitioners.<\/p>\n

The respondents argued that the petitioners have not placed on record any licenses\/registration for functioning as Food Business Operators under the FSS Act, 2006<\/a>. Mere temporary trade licenses from the Municipal Corporations do not mean that the petitioners are permitted to carry out food business in meat trade, let alone dog meat trade. Furthermore, the temporary Import\/Export Permit issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, permitting the petitioners to import dogs from all over India, has been wrongly issued as dog meat trade is not permissible all over India.<\/p>\n

The respondents submitted that Chief Secretary has a constitutional duty under Article 256<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to ensure the public safety and the well- being of the citizens and has the full authority to issue the impugned notification since the consumption of dog’s meat is against the interest of health of the people.<\/p>\n

Issue for Consideration:<\/b> Whether the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had acted beyond its delegated powers by issuing the circular dated 06.08.2014, regarding definition of \u2018animal\u2019. The slaughtering of animals of any other species other than the one listed in sub regulation 2.5.1(a) is not permissible under the FSS Act, 2006<\/a> and Regulation, 2011 and whether in pursuance of the circular the State of Nagaland had rightly issued the impugned order, banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/b> Perusing the contentions issue and FSS Act, 2006<\/a> and Regulations 2011, in detail, the Court stated the following-<\/p>\n