Today, the Delhi High Court has raised concerns about the recent decision of the Central government to ban 23 dog breeds considered hazardous to humans. Justice Subramonium Prasad has initiated a judicial investigation into the government’s broad categorization of ‘aggressive dogs’, emphasizing the possible violation of both animal and owner rights.
The Delhi High Court today on Mrach 21, has called into question the Central government’s recent directive to prohibit 23 dog breeds deemed dangerous to humans. The judicial inquiry, initiated by Justice Subramonium Prasad, targets the government’s blanket classification of ‘ferocious dogs’, spotlighting the potential infringement on animal and owner rights. Scheduled for a thorough examination on August 9, 2024, this case has ignited a significant debate over public safety and animal legislation.
During the proceedings, Justice Prasad highlighted the nature of the circular as a policy decision, stating,
“It is a pure policy decision… If the government has identified certain breeds that is the decision of the experts. Why should I enter into the thicket and then see the nature and characteristics of the dogs’ variety and then come to a conclusion that this breed should be allowed or not,”
reflecting on the complexities of judicial intervention in policy matters.
Despite this stance, Justice Prasad agreed to delve into the specifics of the circular’s third paragraph, concerning the compulsory sterilization of existing pets of the targeted breeds, indicating a nuanced approach to the legislation’s review.
The plea challenging the government’s stance was lodged by citizens Sikander Singh Thakur, Roopak Dhir, Sidhardh Sood, and Dhanu Abraham Roy, represented by Advocates Nikhil Palli and Kshitij Pal. They argue the circular lacks a
“scientific basis, devoid of any research or reports supporting the purported cause of reducing dog bites or enhancing public safety,”
underscoring the absence of empirical data to justify the breed-specific bans.
The petitioners call attention to the critical need for evidence-based policymaking, emphasizing that
“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behaviour, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions.”
On 14th March, The Central Government directed all States and Union Territories to outlaw 23 breeds of ‘ferocious dogs’ due to their potential threat to human safety. The directive come after the government’s commitment to the Delhi High Court in December 2023 to promptly address calls for banning licenses for these perceived dangerous dog breeds.
Furthermore, the appeal criticizes the ambiguous terminology and criteria used in the circular, notably the undefined term “ferocious dog,” which lacks a clear legal or statutory framework within Indian law.
The legal challenge mirrors broader concerns, as the Karnataka High Court on March 20 issued a stay on the implementation of the same circular, albeit restricting the suspension to the state of Karnataka alone. This judicial response showcases a growing skepticism towards the classification and treatment of certain dog breeds under Indian law, setting a significant precedent for animal rights and public safety discourse.
The Central government’s initiative, led by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, aimed to mitigate risks associated with specific dog breeds, including Rottweilers, Pitbull Terriers, and Mastiffs, among others. However, this legal contestation reflects the nuanced balance between ensuring public safety and protecting the rights and welfare of animals and their owners, heralding a pivotal moment in India’s legislative and judicial landscape.
CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS REPORT
