Karnataka High Court quashes circular banning 23 breeds of 'ferocious dogs'

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed a circular issued by the Central government calling for a ban on 23 breeds of 'ferocious dogs which are dangerous for human life' [Shri King Solomon David & Anr v. Joint Secretary and Others]..Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna struck down the circular while also stating that the Central government is at liberty to issue a fresh circular after proper consultation and by following proper procedure. ."It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders were heard. The composition of the committee is not in consonance with Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Union of India could not have imposed the ban without a recommendation from a properly constituted committee. Union of India could not have imposed a blanket ban in the teeth of rules in force. The circular travels beyond what is found in Animal Birth Control Rules ... The circular cannot but be held to be contrary to the law and therefore has to be obliterated," the Court held. .However, it added that the quashing of the circular would not prevent the Central government from issuing a fresh circular on the issue or introducing a legal amendment by following proper procedure and after due consultation with stakeholders. The stakeholders so consulted should include organisations that certify breeds of dogs and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as well, the Court opined..The Court further emphasised that the focus of any such exercise should be responsible pet ownership. .The Court reasoned that blanket bans on dog breeds are unlikely to tackle the issue of canine aggression or dog bites, and that the solution lay in responsible pet ownership, regardless of breed. "Breed bans have never resulted in responsible pet ownership ... A blanket psychological thought process of this kind cannot and will not lead to any solution to the problem. It is for the dog owners to act responsibly that their pets would not harm any other citizen/other living beings in the vicinity or anywhere. Thus, pet owners would become solely responsible for the act of their dogs, if they are ferocious or dangerous, and the pet owners have kept them despite their characteristic being projected, they should act responsibly, and responsible pet ownership must emerge as a sine qua non to pet ownership, as it is in public domain that dogs are more likely to become aggressive when they are unsupervised, un-nurtured and not socially conditioned to live closely with human beings and other dogs / animals. It is this that has to be emphasized on pet owners," the Court said. .The order was passed in a joint petition moved by a professional dog handler and the owner of a Rottweiler, who alleged that the Expert Committee whose recommendation led to the circular, had not consulted any stakeholder before the decision.Advocate Swaroop Anand P appeared for the petitioners before the High Court. Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamat represented the Central government. .Through its circular, the Centre had asked all States and Union Territories (UTs) to ban 23 breeds of 'ferocious dogs which are dangerous for human life'.This was after the Central government had assured the Delhi High Court in December 2023 that it will expeditiously take a decision on the demand for a ban on licences to keep breeds of dogs considered to be dangerous.Subsequently, an Expert Committee, chaired by the Animal Husbandry Commissioner and comprising members from various stakeholder organizations and experts, identified the following dog breeds as ferocious and dangerous to human life: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 Tosa,Japanese 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 Central government, therefore, urged all States and UTs to ban the above breeds..Challenging the decision, the petitioners before the Karnataka High Court argued that the circular was highly arbitrary, without jurisdiction and profoundly discriminatory in nature.The plea also argued that no particular dog breed can be identified as an aggressive breed. Any stand-alone incident of attack by the breed can be attributed only to the untrained and unsocialised dogs, it added."There are several dog breeds which are not covered under the impugned circular which have also caused dogs attacks, and for the said reason the rationale behind the classification in the impugned circular is highly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside," the petitioners contended..[Read Judgment]