The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on certain dog breeds deemed dangerous. The petition, filed by the Legal Attorneys & Barristers Law Firm, called for a prohibition on breeds such as Pitbulls, Terriers, American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, and several others. The court, however, directed the petitioner to first approach government authorities with their grievances.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, emphasized the importance of following due process before directly approaching the court.
“This is a wrong trend in PILs. This is a policy decision,”
the bench stated. The court further advised the petitioner’s lawyer,
“Before filing, you make a representation to the government that this is my grievance but you have come straight to the court. You have to make a representation first.”
The petition highlighted numerous incidents where such dog breeds have attacked people, including their owners. It argued that breeds like Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Pitbulls, Terriers, Neapolitan Mastiffs, and others are “dangerous dogs” and are banned in more than 12 countries, including India. Despite this, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi continues to register these breeds as pets.
The list of breeds mentioned in the petition includes Pitbull, Terrier, American Bulldog, Rottweiler, Japanese Tosa, Bandog, Neapolitan Mastiff, Wolf Dog, Boerboel, Presa Canario, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, and their crossbreeds. The petition asserted,
“It is the need of the hour to ban and cancel the license to keep such dogs.”
In response to the petition, counsel representing the Union of India assured the court that a decision would be taken expeditiously, preferably within three months, after consulting all stakeholders. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, who were presiding over the matter, then disposed of the petition. Justice Manmohan remarked on the diversity of dog breeds in India, noting,
“In fact, they need to be taken care of, and they are far more steady.”
He also suggested that the “local for vocal” campaign could be extended to dog ownership.
The petition emphasized the duty of the respondents as a welfare state to take preemptive action to protect citizens from the risk of major dog bite incidents by the aforementioned dangerous dogs. With the court’s decision to not entertain the PIL directly and the government’s commitment to review the matter, the issue of regulating dangerous dog breeds remains a topic of significant public interest and policy consideration.