Delhi High Court asks Central government to explain rationale for ban on 'ferocious' dog breeds

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered the Central government to explain the rationale behind calling for a ban on 23 ‘ferocious dog breeds which are dangerous for human life’ [Canine Welfare Organisation v Union of India & Anr]..A division bench of acting chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice to the Central and Delhi governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by Canine Welfare Organisation challenging the government’s circular.In an order passed on March 22, the Court asked the government to explain the basis on which the decision was taken and show the details to the Court.The case will be heard next on April 9..The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the Government of India had issued a circular on March 12 asking all States and Union Territories to ban 23 breeds of 'ferocious dogs" .The species which are to be banned are:.Pitbull TerrierTosa 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 TosaJapanese Akita Mastiffs Rottweiler Terriers Rhodesian RidgebackWolf dogs Canario Akbash dog Moscow Guard dog Cane Corso Every dog of the type commonly known as Ban Dog (or Bandog).Canine Welfare Organisation has argued that the circular is in violation of the Constitution of India as the Department of Animal Husbandry lacks the power to issue such a circular that is to be implemented by the states.The plea said that the circular is also in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Rules made under the Act as they do not provide for sterilisation of pet dogs.“The impugned circular is also silent on the enabling provision under which such prohibitory order can be passed by the Respondent No.1 while directing all States to implement the same… The impugned circular does not disclose any reasoning given by the purported Executive Committee for selectively choosing certain breeds to pass a generic banning order in respect of certain breeds of dogs,” the petition said. .It contended that certain breeds have been labelled as "dangerous for human life" without any scientific research, data or reasoning.“The rationale or intelligible differentia is missing in the decision making process. It is submitted that the PC Act or the rules made thereunder, do not give any yardstick/set principles to define and label a particular breed of animals as "dangerous".The petitioner argued that the circular is illegal and a blanket order has been passed in respect of 23 breeds, which also includes general reference to "mastiffs", "terriers" and "wolf dogs" which encompasses several subspecies, without identifying any peculiar characteristics of such sub-species which would differentiate one from the other.“Identification of breeds is whimsical and motivated, many indigenous breed, namely, Rajapalayam, Kombai, Mudhol Hound, Chippiparai, Rampur Greyhound, Gaddi Kutta, Kanni have been conveniently left out despite the fact that these breeds are essentially bred for hunting. The Respondent No.1 is evidently adopted a pick-and-choose mechanism to identify certain breeds without any justifiable basis.”.Advocate Gaurav Varma appeared for Canine Welfare Organisation. .Notably, a writ petition challenging the government circular was earlier filed before the Delhi High Court.Single-judge Justice Subramonium Prasad had heard that matter and issued notice to the Central government and listed the case for hearing in August..Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court had stayed the circular.The Calcutta High Court too had partially stayed the circular with respect to the directions to the pet owners to sterilise the dogs owned by them belonging to the 23 breeds which have been banned.