Read Time: 05 minutes
The single judge bench of Justice Anita Sumanth had previously annulled the DGFT's notification, which prohibited the import of all dogs, except for those used as pets by the importers, dogs required for research and animals necessary for internal security by the defense and police forces
The Central Government has filed a writ appeal before the Madras High Court contesting a decision made by a single judge bench on June 6, 2023, invalidating the April 25, 2016 direction issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which imposed restrictions on the import of dogs, with some exceptions.
The division bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy have scheduled the appeal for hearing on November 8, 2023. During the initial arguments, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan argued that the previous decision by the single judge bench was flawed in setting aside the DGFT's notification.
The single judge bench of Justice Anita Sumanth had previously annulled the DGFT's notification, which prohibited the import of all dogs, except for those used as pets by the importers, dogs required for research by research and development organizations, and animals necessary for internal security by the defense and police forces.
The legal action stemmed from writ petitions filed in 2016 and 2017 by the Kennel Club of India, the Madras Canine Club, and an individual dog enthusiast named C.R. Bhaalakkrishna Bhat. They contested the ban and advocated for allowing the import of dogs for use as pets, participation in dog shows, and ethical breeding.
The judge sided with the petitioners, concurring that the dog import ban was enacted without conducting essential scientific research and due diligence regarding the potential transmission of harmful pathogens by imported animals and the threat they might pose to indigenous species.
However, in their appeal, filed by Central Government Senior Standing Counsel V. Chandrasekhar, the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the DGFT argued, "The judge's ruling is flawed, incorrect, and should be overturned."
The Central Government also asserted that it falls beyond the purview of judicial review, as specified in Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, for the high court to interfere with government policy decisions. They maintained that the writ petitions were originally filed in 2016 and 2017 based on the sole argument that the DGFT had exceeded its authority in comparison to the Central Government. They argued that this argument no longer holds, citing a 2020 Supreme Court decision in Union of India versus AGRICAS LLP, which firmly established that the DGFT is an integral part of the government and fully authorized to issue such notifications.
Case Title: THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS THE KENNEL CLUB OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
[Inputs: The Hindu]
Please Login or Register
