Consider Objections To Ban On 'Dangerous & Ferocious' Dog Breeds: Kerala High Court To Ministry Of Animal Husbandry

The Court noted that similar writ petitions were filed in Karnataka and Delhi alleging that the circular was issued without consulting or inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders. The Delhi High Court quashed the circular and held that all stakeholders would be heard for raising their objections before the issuance of a fresh circular. The Delhi High Court had stated that Central Government shall issue a public notice in a national newspaper as well as on the Ministry's official website inviting written objections to the proposed or draft notification to the rules since it would not be possible to give an oral hearing to every dog owner. A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court also.

Justice T R Ravi observed that public notice was issued dated May 02, 2024, in compliance with the above orders stating that the circular would not be enforced until further orders. The Court further observed that the public notice mentioned about the decision taken to invite written comments and objections with scientific reasoning from the stakeholders by June 01, 2024. It also observed that no decision has been taken by the Ministry pursuant to the receipt of such objections/comments.

In the present case, the Court stated that the petitioners submitted their objections on June 04, 2024 and directed it also to be considered. The Court ordered thus:

“In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 along with other comments while taking a decision on DO letter No.V-11/1/2024-Anlm-Dadf dated 02.05.2024 in compliance with the directions issued by the High Court of Karnataka in its judgment dated 10.04.2024 in WP(C)No.8409 of 2024 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 16.04.2024 in WP(C)No.4374 of 2024 and other connected cases. If the 3rd respondent is proposing to hear the registered organizations/stake holders on their comments, by a personal hearing, such facility shall be extended to the petitioners as well.”

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.

Earlier, the Court partially stayed the operation of the circular while upholding the restriction on selling and importing the banned dog breeds.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Achuth Kylas, R.Mahesh Menon, Sachin.P.K, Varghese Xavier, Sreedevi Kylasanath, K.M.Sathyanatha Menon

Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel V Gireesh Kumar, Government Pleader Rajeev Jyothish George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347

Case Title: Limjith K J v Union of India

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 12760 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Judgment