Read Time: 10 minutes
Through a notification dated July 4, 2020, commercial import and trading of dog and dogs’ market and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine-in restaurants had been banned by the state government of Nagaland.
The Gauhati High Court has recently quashed and set aside the state government order of July 4, 2020, banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine-in restaurants.
The bench of Justice Marli Vankung noted that the consumption of dog meat is an accepted norm and food amongst the Nagas in the state even in modern times although it is not considered the standard of food for human consumption.
Court passed the order in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of the appropriate writ for violation of the petitioners’ Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution and for violation of principles of natural justice.
It was petitioners' contention that they had an Import/Export permit, dated June 3, 2020, issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, which allowed them to import dogs to Kohima and they had been earning their livelihood by selling dog meat but by the impugned notification, the trade of dog meat trade was banned which affected their livelihood.
They said that it is the culture and custom of the Nagas to eat dog’s meat which has also been mentioned in some of the earliest ethnographical and anthropological accounts of the Nagas.
Before the single judge bench, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was notified by the State Government stating that the slaughtering of any other species other than the ones listed in Sub-Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 is not permissible.
The counsel argued that Regulation, 2011 did not expressly or impliedly prohibited the slaughter of any specific animals not mentioned in Regulation 2.5.1(a) of Regulation, 2011 for human consumption.
The counsel stressed that sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Regulation, 2011 defined ‘animal’ which does not include dogs or canines.
Therefore, while asserting that Regulation,2011, had been wrongly interpreted by the Food Safety Authority of India and the state respondents, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notification was not in consonance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Additionally, the counsel challenged the authority of the Chief Secretary in issuing the impugned order by stating that Section 30 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 mandates the State Government to appoint the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State to implement the provisions of the Act within the State and only he is authorized to pass such order.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that when the Regulations, 2011 were framed, they were made public before they were brought before the Parliament and at that time, there was no objection or protest, therefore, at this later stage, the petitioners could not object to the definition of animals which is given under regulation 2.5 of Regulation, 2011, which narrows down the definition of animals which are safe for human consumption.
Any other animal not mentioned in the regulation is held not safe for human consumption and cannot be considered as food, the counsel asserted.
Further, while refuting the contention raised by the petitioner that their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was being contravened, the respondents' counsel stated that the right to privacy does not grant the petitioners to carry out illegal dog meat trade as part of the unlicensed and unregistered food businesses in terms of the FSS Act/Regulations.
Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the Chief Secretary has a constitutional duty under Article 256 of the Constitution to ensure the public safety and the well-being of the citizens and has the full authority to issue the impugned notification since the consumption of dog’s meat is against the interest of health of the people.
The high court noted that under the definition of ‘animals’ under Regulation 2.5.1 (a) of Regulations, 2011, canine or dogs have not been mentioned.
Court added, "(It) is not surprising since the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the North Eastern states and the very idea of consuming dog meat is alien in other parts of the country. The thought of adding canine/dogs as an animal for human consumption under regulation 2.5.1(a) would be inconceivable, since consumption of dog meat would be considered unthinkable".
Further, court pointed out that Regulation 2.5 of Regulation, 2011 deals with only how to process the ‘animals’ mentioned and there is no provision in the regulation, prohibiting the slaughter of any other animal for human consumption, not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Regulation, 2011.
Moreover, court held that the Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the impugned order in light of Section 30 of the FSS Act, 2006.
Therefore, while stating that instead of banning it, an awareness programme should be organised by the state government regarding the issue, the high court set aside the ban on the trade of dog meat.
Case Title: NEIZEVOLIE KUOTSU ALIAS TONI KUOTSU AND 2 ORS V STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 OTHERS
Please Login or Register
