Read Time: 06 minutes
The petitioner argued that the status report filed by the State was inadequate, as it failed to provide details of measures taken against illegal dog breeding centers. The petitioner highlighted that the authorities identified only two illegal breeding centers in Delhi NCR and imposed a mere fine of ₹50 on them.
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, reprimanded the State authorities contending that there are no illegal breeders in the region. The bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that while the authorities may not have identified all illegal breeding centers, asserting their non-existence was inaccurate. The court further directed GNCTD to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to identify breeders in Delhi and the NCR region.
Standing Counsel SK Tripathi, for State, informed the court that the dog breeding rules did not grant the power to shut down unregistered breeding centers. Instead, the rules required such establishments to register, prompting the authorities to issue registration notices. The State also claimed that most pet shops were not breeding dogs but were sourcing them from external breeders. However, despite repeated notices, no centers had complied with the registration process.
Addressing the issue of fines, the State's counsel clarified that ₹50 was the maximum penalty permissible under the existing dog breeding rules.
Advocate Supriya Juneja, for the petitioner, raised two critical objections to the State's arguments. Firstly, they noted that every pet shop was legally required to maintain a record book detailing the breed and supplier information for all dogs intended for sale. It was argued that the State's claim that pet shops lacked such details was both incorrect and unacceptable. Secondly, the petitioner asserted that non-compliant pet shops should be shut down, and provisional registrations for such establishments should be canceled. The petitioner also emphasized that successive affidavits from the State merely repeated earlier statements, reflecting a lack of progress over several years.
In defense, Standing Counsel SK Tripathi stated that registration invitations had been issued, and the 90-day period for compliance had already lapsed in September. They further informed the court that an exercise to register pet owners was underway and would be completed within 90 days. Following this, the authorities planned to enforce the relevant rules and take action against pet shop owners—both registered and unregistered—found violating the regulations.
The court expressed reservations regarding the State's claim that no breeders existed in Delhi. It directed the State to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to identify breeders in Delhi and the NCR region. The case was scheduled for its next hearing on May 7,2025.
Previously, Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had reprimanded the Animal Husbandry Department over their failure to take effective measures to control illegal dog breeding. The court had expressed disappointment over the lack of progress, noting that dog bite incidents had increased during the six years the petition remained unresolved.
The court had warned that if the affidavit failed to provide a satisfactory response, it would be compelled to direct the Chief Secretary of GNCTD to take disciplinary action against the officers responsible for the inaction over the years.
For Petitioner: Advocates Supriya Juneja, Shaalini Agrawal, Siddharth Pandey, and Esha DuttaFor Respondent: Standing Counsel SK Tripathi, Additional Standing Counsel Jawahar Raja with Advocate Aditi SaraswatCase Title: Gauri Maulekhi v Delhi Advisory Board For Animal Welfare (W.P.(C) 7467/2018)
Please Login or Register
