Delhi High Court seeks Centre reply after dog breeder invokes right to livelihood against ban on 'ferocious' dogs

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the recent notification banning 23 'ferocious' dog breeds in the country [Sachin Kumar Jaiswal & Ors v. Union of India & Anr]. .While declining to stay the notification despite acknowledging that other High Courts had granted such relief, Justice Subramonium Prasad sought the Centre’s response to the petition. .One of the petitioners in this matter is a dog trainer and the other is a doctor and an “enthusiast of the special category of dogs”.The plea argues that no study was conducted in India to come to the conclusion that the dog breeds in question were ferocious and required to be banned. “There is no data that indicates that these dogs have caused terror, warranting their ban. An arbitrary and blanket ban on the 23 dog breeds is violative of the Constitution of India… An immediate and sudden ban such as this can result in forced suffering and/or euthanasia for dogs with no bite history,” the petitioners said..The ban on breeding specific dog breeds such as Cane Corso, Rottweiler, Terrier, etc, lacks any rational basis or scientific justification, they contended.Interestingly, the professional dog trainer has invoked the Constitutional provision relating to the right to practice any profession and argued that the ban would directly impact his livelihood.“Impugned notification constitutes a direct and severe encroachment upon his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade, or business of their choice, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of the general public,” the plea stated.Calling the Centre’s action arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioner said that the notification had infringed upon his right to carry out his profession freely and without undue interference..Senior Advocate Manali Singhal and Advocates Mustafa Alam, Yashima Sharma, Heeba Ansari, Pawan Yadav and Lakshay Kaushik represented the petitioners.Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared for the Central government..Acting on a similar plea previously, Justice Prasad had sought a reply from the Centre and posted the matter on August 9.On the other hand, a public interest litigation raising the same issue is pending hearing before Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.