Delhi High Court seeks Centre's response to plea challenging ban on 'ferocious' dog breeds

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Central government on a plea challenging a circular calling for a ban on 23 breeds of 'ferocious dogs which are dangerous for human life' [Sikander Singh Thakur & Ors v Union of India & Ors]..Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the matter will be heard next on August 9, 2024. .During the hearing of the case, Justice Prasad remarked that government's circular is a policy decision. “It is a pure policy decision… If the government has identified certain breeds that is the decision of the experts. Why should I enter into the thicket and then see the nature and characteristics of the dogs variety and then come to a conclusion that this breed should be allowed or not,” the Bench remarked.Justice Prasad nevertheless said that he will examine the paragraph three of the government circular which mandates that even the current owners of the said breeds shall sterilize their pets. The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the government circular is without any rationale and a comprehensive response must be filed.It was also pointed out that other High Courts have also issued notices on similar pleas and the Karnataka High Court even stayed the circular. The Court then proceeded to issue notice on the matter..The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, had issued a circular on March 12, 2024 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).The plea before the Delhi High Court was filed by Sikander Singh Thakur, Roopak Dhir, Sidhardh Sood, and Dhanu Abraham Roy through advocates Nikhil Palli and Kshitij Pal. As per the plea, the notification imposes a mandate on current owners of the said breeds to forcibly sterilize their pets, severely restricting their rights as pet owners and imposing undue hardships on responsible pet caregivers.The petitioners contended that the notification is characterized by its lack of “scientific basis, devoid of any research or reports supporting the purported cause of reducing dog bites or enhancing public safety”..The absence of substantiated scientific evidence or justifiable empirical data backing the classification of specific dog breeds as "ferocious" renders the notification arbitrary ab initio. The foundational premise of any regulatory measure, particularly one involving significant restrictions and prohibitions affecting individual rights and interests, must rest upon sound and objective scientific findings, the petitioners stressed.“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behaviour, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions. Consequently, the arbitrariness inherent in the notification's formulation casts serious doubt upon its validity and warrants judicial review to ensure adherence to constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness, and evidence-based policymaking,” the plea argued.It said that the term "ferocious dog" used in the notification lacks any defined legal or statutory framework within Indian law or regulations.The petitioners further argued that the notification remains vague and unclear regarding the criteria or rationale used to characterize certain dog breeds as "ferocious.".Notably, on March 20, the Karnataka High Court had stayed the implementation of the notification. However, it had clarified that stay would only be applicable in the State of Karnataka.