Breaking: Karnataka High Court Quashes Union's Circular Banning 23 Breeds Of 'Dangerous & Ferocious' Dogs
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of certain breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of certain breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung has recorded the undertaking of Union of India that they would hear all stakeholders. It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders are heard. The composition of the committee is not in consonance with the Rule framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Union of India could not have imposed the ban without appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee.”
Court said the "blanket ban" is in teeth of the rules being in force. However, it clarified that the circular's obliteration will not come in the way of the Central government bringing in an amendment to any of the rules framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1960, after following due process of law. It added,
“In the event of rebirth of what is now obliterated the stakeholders shall be heard. Stakeholder would not mean every pet owner, but an organisation certified that breeds being heard would suffice, the company PETA who has sought to intervene shall also be heard by UoI, in case it brings in a law.”
The court also opined that government should focus on "responsible pet ownership". "...make the pet owners responsible for the acts of the dogs they own, whether ferocious or otherwise. Responsibility of pet owners will not be limited to only oral responsibility but should be made accountable for the entire treatment of the victim, who would be injured by the dog including separate claim for damages,” it said.
The detailed order would be made available on Monday.
The court had on April 8, reserved its order on a petition filed challenging the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of certain breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life in the state.
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath appearing for the Ministry had submitted that the Delhi High Court had said all the stakeholders must be consulted and that he had verified that the statutory stakeholders were consulted but it had to be extended to bodies from civil society which represent the breeders association. The ASG undertook to redo the exercise after consulting all the necessary stakeholders.
Advocate Swaroop Anand R appearing for the petitioner argued that not a single domain expert was there in the technical expert committee formed by the Ministry. He said that the AQCS of Central Zoo authority is part of that committee, but he is responsible for the quarantine of animals for disease prevention. Further, he said that Guidelines should be prescribed for big dogs, in terms of behavioural training and the petitioners would support the same.
The circular banned the following breeds of dogs: Breeds (including mixed and cross breeds) like 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 and Akita, Mastiffs (boerbulls), Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Wolf Dogs, Canario, Akbash dog, Moscow Guard dog, Cane corso and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).
The circular also required those, who have reared the aforesaid breed of dogs as pets with them, to sterilise their pets and stop further breeding
Appearance: Advocate Swaroop Anand R for Petitioner.
Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath a/w Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Case Title: King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint Secretary
Case No: WP 8409/2024