Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has issued notices to both the Central and Maharashtra governments, prompting their responses to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a circular enforcing a ban on 23 dog breeds.

A division bench, led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and also comprising Justice Arif S. Doctor, presiding over the case, acknowledged that the Calcutta bench has already partially stayed the circular. However, the court underscored the necessity of awaiting the Union government's response before proceeding. Notably, no executive actions have been taken in Maharashtra based on the circular.

The PIL filed by the Pune-based NGO Animal Rescue Trust, contests the validity of a circular issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying on March 12, instructing states to refrain from granting licenses or permissions for the sale, breeding, and ownership of specific dog breeds labeled as "dangerous for human life.”

The NGO has sought an interim stay on the circular's enforcement while urging the court to annul the circular in entirely arguing it to be arbitrary and legally unsound.

The plea states, “The Union of India's letter is non factual, hypothetical, is drafted without having any scientific or medical proofs of ferocity in  these 23 breeds behaviour and only based on few incidents of dog bites of which no records or data or study available and this ban will have grave repercussions on these dogs as more shall be abandoned or killed, pet owners as well NGOs / Animal welfare Volunteers.”

The petitioner highlighted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was previously filed by legal attorneys and a barristers' law firm in the Delhi High Court, advocating for the banning of certain dog breeds due to reported incidents of dog bites both in India and abroad, along with bans enforced by several other countries. In response to this PIL, the Union of India agreed to address the grievances related to these breeds. Consequently, on December 6, 2023, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition.

The petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with the subsequent order issued by the Union of India, prompting the filing of the present Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner contended that the Union of India's decision to unilaterally ban these 23 dog breeds without consulting stakeholders or considering alternative measures was “unfounded, hypothetical, and illegal.”

The petitioner criticised the Union of India's approach, arguing that aggression in dogs could stem from various triggers, circumstances, or even stray dogs, not limited to the specified breeds.

 

Cause Title: Animal Rescue Trust v Union of India