How three high courts have dealt with the Centre’s circular on banning 23 dog breeds

While the Karnataka HC stayed the circular on Tuesday (March 19), the Calcutta HC ordered a partial stay just two days later. The Delhi HC also sought the Centre’s response to a plea challenging the circular on Thursday.

What does the circular say?

The March 12 letter from Dr OP Chaudhary, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, directed chief secretaries of all states and UTs to ensure that no licences or permissions are issued for the sale, breeding, or keeping of dog breeds “dangerous for human life.”

It aimed to address concerns about human deaths caused by dog bites from “ferocious” breeds kept as pets.

The circular mentioned “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).”

Banning the rearing and importing of these breeds, the circular also directed dog owners to sterilise them. These recommendations came from an expert committee, formed under the Animal Husbandry Commissioner’s chairmanship. It was said to include various stakeholder organisations and experts as members.

However, two HCs stayed the circular.

How did the Calcutta HC stay the circular?

In ‘Tanmay Dutta vs. State of West Bengal’, the Calcutta HC partially stayed the Centre’s circular.

Dutta, a dog owner, contended that no law in India permits killing or banning dogs. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the Centre to file an affidavit containing details of the expert committee members and their credentials.

The court also found substance in the petitioner’s argument that the directive to sterilise dog breeds could have a fatal effect on them, particularly on puppies.

“It is rightly pointed out that pets have been directed to be mandatorily sterilised, which is not sanctioned by any norm of animal sciences before a particular age. As such, even young puppies may have to be sterilised, which may prove fatal to them…” the court said, according to a Bar and Bench report.

However, the court added that the stay didn’t apply to the circular’s directive of banning the import and sale of such dog breeds due to the “commercial connotation” of such activities.

In his plea, Dutta also argued that although the Centre’s circular was issued according to a Delhi HC order from last year, the HC never ordered a ban.

What was the previous Delhi HC order?

Last year, a law firm named Legal Attorneys & Barristers filed a public interest litigation (PIL) to ban certain “dangerous” dog breeds, contending that they were banned in over 35 countries, including the UK and USA.

On December 6, 2023, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Centre to decide on the petitioner’s representation “expeditiously”, preferably within three months.

More recently, the Delhi HC in ‘Sikander Singh Thakur & Ors vs. Union of India’ dealt with a challenge to the March 12 circular, where the petitioner argued against the sterilisation mandate.

“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,” the plea said.

On March 21, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad sought a response from the Centre on the plea.

Why did the Karnataka HC stay the circular?

On March 19, a single bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna acted on a plea filed jointly by a professional dog handler and rottweiler owner (‘Shri King Solomon David & Anr v. Joint Secretary and Others’).

The petitioners claimed that the Expert Committee which recommended issuing the circular did not consult any stakeholder before making its decision.

Justice Nagaprasanna said that until the Deputy Solicitor General of India produces “those documents that went into decision making of the impugned circular,” it “shall remain stayed”, but only in Karnataka. The HC also noted that the effect of the circular is pan-India and could lead to a “devastating effect” on the 23 breeds.

The Deputy Solicitor General of India argued that the circular was issued on the strength of the Delhi HC’s December 6 order. However, the court pointed out that the Delhi HC had unequivocally directed that “all stakeholders” must be consulted before taking action.

“The circular though refers to members of several stakeholder organization being a part of the Expert Committee, there are several who would not be heard,” the court said.

For instance, petitioners claimed that the Kennel Club of India, the official body in the country for the registration of litters, wasn’t heard.

They added that identifying a particular dog breed as “ferocious and dangerous to human life” required “profound expertise” in identifying whether those breeds are appropriately trained. Several listed breeds are identical to other Indian breeds which are not part of the circular, the petitioners also argued.

Listing the matter for further hearing on April 5, the court reiterated Delhi HC‘s directive to consult “all” stakeholders rather than a few.