Today(on 10th April), the Karnataka High Court nullified a contentious circular issued by the Central government, which aimed to prohibit 23 dog breeds labeled as ‘ferocious’ and deemed a threat to human safety.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: Today(on 10th April), the Karnataka High Court invalidated a controversial circular issued by the Central government, which sought to ban 23 dog breeds labeled as ‘ferocious’ and posing a threat to human safety. Justice M Nagaprasanna‘s ruling emphasized substantial procedural lapses, particularly the lack of stakeholder consultation and failure to comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, a single-judge, struck down the circular while asserting that the Central government had the liberty to issue a fresh circular after proper consultation and by following the appropriate procedure.
The court pointed out that none of the stakeholders were given an opportunity to express their views, and the composition of the committee did not comply with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The court further stated that the ban imposed by the Union of India went beyond the permissible limits set by the Animal Birth Control Rules.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC: All Pleas Against Centre’s Ban on 23 ‘Dangerous’ Dog Breeds to Be Heard Together
The court held-
“The circular must be deemed to be in violation of the law and consequently must be nullified.”
However, the court clarified that the quashing of the circular does not prevent the Central government from issuing a fresh circular or introducing a legal amendment, provided that the proper procedure is followed, and stakeholders, including organizations that certify dog breeds and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), are consulted.
While passing the order, the court emphasized that responsible pet ownership should be the focal point of any such exercise. It stated-
“The responsibility of pet owners should extend beyond mere moral obligation; they ought to be held liable for the complete treatment of any victims injured by their dogs, including the pursuit of separate claims for damages.”
The joint petition challenging the circular was filed by a professional dog handler and the owner of a Rottweiler, who alleged that the Expert Committee responsible for the ban did not consult any stakeholders before making its recommendation. Advocate Swaroop Anand P appeared for the petitioners before the High Court, while Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamat represented the Central government.
The circular issued by the Central government directed all states and union territories to ban 23 breeds of dogs considered “ferocious and dangerous to human life.” This action was taken after the Central government assured the Delhi High Court in December 2023 that it would promptly address the demand for a ban on licenses to keep breeds of dogs deemed dangerous.
An Expert Committee, chaired by the Animal Husbandry Commissioner and consisting of members from various stakeholder organizations and experts, identified the following dog breeds as ferocious and dangerous to human life:
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, Japanese Akita, Mastiffs, Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Wolf dogs, Canario Akbash dog, Moscow Guard dog, Cane Corso, and every dog of the type commonly known as Ban Dog (or Bandog).
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Halts Ban on 23 Dog Breeds Deemed Dangerous by Central Government
The petitioners argued before the Karnataka High Court that the circular was highly arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and exhibited profound discrimination. They contended that no specific dog breed could be classified as inherently aggressive. Incidents of attacks by certain breeds could be attributed to untrained and unsocialized dogs rather than the breed itself. The petitioners further highlighted that several dog breeds not covered under the circular had also been involved in dog attacks, rendering the classification arbitrary and deserving of being set aside.
CASE TITLE:
Shri King Solomon David & Anr v. Joint Secretary and Others
