The high court, in an interim order on Thursday, imposed a partial stay on a March 12 notification by the Centre’s department of animal husbandry and dairying prohibiting import, sale and breeding of 23 types of pet dogs that a government panel had described as “ferocious”.
The Centre had directed the states and Union Territories not to issue licences to keep and breed these dogs and make sterilisation mandatory for them.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the high court stayed the part of the notification that banned breeding of the dogs and made sterilisation mandatory. Also, following the stay, licences can be issued to keep these dogs as pets.
The judge held that the notification was issued without any research or consultation with stakeholders such as dog breeders and kennel clubs.
“It is contended that no stakeholder was consulted prior to issuance of such notification. Moreover, the impugned notification is not backed by any research work at all,” Justice Bhattacharyya said.
This newspaper reported earlier this month that the panel, which the government said had experts and members from stakeholder organisations, had classified American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Pitbull Terriers, Rottweilers, several Shepherd Dogs and Wolf Dogs, among others, as “ferocious” and “dangerous for human life”.
In a note to all the states and UTs, the animal husbandry department said the local bodies should issue guidelines to implement the ban.
There has been a public concern over dog attacks on humans.
Justice Bhattacharyya, however, did not issue any stay on the other part of the notification that prohibits the import and sale of such dogs.
“Yet, in so far as selling is concerned, many breeders may not have the facilities for the proper upkeep of the unsold puppies/dogs of the breeds in question, if not sold over a long period.... For the time being, the breeders who have custody of dogs of the particular prohibited breeds shall take ample care for proper maintenance and upkeep of the said puppies/dogs, ensuring their safety and wellbeing,” the order said.
In conclusion, the judge said: “Accordingly, the operation of the notification dated March 12, 2024, annexed at page 31 of the writ petition, which has been impugned herein, shall remain stayed till April 30, 2024, or until further order, whichever is earlier, but for the exception that the prohibition on import and selling of the dogs of such breeds shall subsist for the time being, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.”
The matter will be heard again on April 18.
Advocate Kumarjit Das, who appeared for petitioner Tanmay Mallik, a dog breeder, said: “The Centre’s notification was based on a stray incident where a man was badly injured by a dog. Following the incident, Delhi High Court issued an order asking the Centre to set up an expert committee to find a solution to the problem.”
After the committee submitted its recommendations, Delhi High Court asked the Centre to frame the rules.
Justice Bhattacharyya asked the Centre to file a comprehensive affidavit stating details about their reasons for issuing such a notification and details of the members of the expert committee.
Asked whether a high court could impose a stay on an order passed by another high court, Das said: “Since Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts are old and prime high courts of the country, these courts hold the right to issue a stay on orders passed by other high courts.”
Dog breeders in Calcutta welcomed the stay.
“If their breeding is stopped and the dogs are sterilised, the particular breeds will become extinct,” saidSib Sankar Chatterjee, member of the executive committee of Kennel Club of India and secretary, Calcutta Canine Club.
