Calcutta High Court Partially Stays Centre's Notification Banning Certain "Dangerous & Ferocious" Dog Breeds

The Calcutta High Court has partially stayed a notification passed by the Union Government on 12th March 2024, by which it prohibited the import, breeding, and selling as pet dogs of around 23 dog breeds.

The notification also directed the local authorities to not issue any licenses for keeping or breeding the aforesaid dog breeds and to sterilise dogs who had already been kept as pets to prohibit further breeding.

In staying the partially staying notification, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

There is substance in the petitioner's argument that the effect of the notification may be fatal to the breeds mentioned therein, particularly puppies of the said breeds. 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. Notification may have a prima facie fatal effect on the dog breeds mentioned therein. As such, the notification shall remain stayed.

However, selling and import has a commercial connotation. Breeders are directed to take adequate care of the dogs, puppies of the aforesaid breeds. As such the restriction on the import and selling of the aforesaid dog breeds shall remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition, it added.

Advocate Satarup Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner who was a dog breeder, submitted that the notification was violative of animal rights and the rights of humans to keep pets who had acquired a niche of special importance in the human psyche.

It was contended that the notification was issued pursuant to a Delhi High Court order, but there was no mention in the order pertaining to such directions or the banning of certain dog breeds.

It was further argued that no stakeholder was consulted before issuing the impugned notification and that it was not backed by any research.

It was submitted that picking and choosing particular dog breeds was arbitrary and any dog breed otherwise considered to be mellow in behaviour may also bite people, which would not be sufficient to label them as dangerous breeds.

Counsel for the state argued that due to the impugned notification, the State would be bound to implement the same.

Counsel for the Union submitted that the notification was preceded by stakeholder consultation and a report by a special committee, and could not be faulted.

It was argued that human rights have to get precedence over animal rights if pitted against each other.

Court observed that a perusal of the notification showed that there was no yardstick to classify particular breeds of dogs as dangerous, and the expression "dangerous for human life" was vague, lacking any rationale to apply it to the dog breeds mentioned.

It was held that the composition of the expert committee who took the decision was vague, and it appeared that there was no research done before classifying certain breeds as dangerous or ferocious.

Court held that the breeding of dogs involves several stages and that it would be extremely dangerous to stop such a process suddenly.

However, it held that the prohibition on import and selling had a commercial connotation and that many breeders may not be able to maintain certain dogs of these breeds who may not be sold for a long period.

Court made clear that for the time being, breeders possessing dogs belonging to the aforesaid breeds take adequate care of the puppies or dogs.

Accordingly, the Court partially stayed the operation of the notification dated 12th March till 30th April 2024, whilst upholding the restriction on selling and import of the dog breeds concerned.

It also called for reports from the Union pertaining to the composition of the expert committee, as well as the criterion employed by the said committee to classify certain dog breeds as dangerous and ferocious.

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocates Satarup Banerjee, Nirmalyo Dasgupta, Sariful Haque, Avisheik Guha and Kumarjit Das.

Case: Tanmay Dutta v Union of India

Case No: WPA 8632/2024