IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for responsible pet ownership and the need for the government to consult stakeholders and follow due process of law when imposing bans or amendments related to animal welfare.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a Circular dated 12-03-2024 issued by the 1st respondent imposing ban on certain breeds of dogs on the score that they belong to a category of ‘ferocious dogs’.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief germane, are as follows:-

The 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of German breed Rottweiler male dogs and have a registration from the sole registering agency, the Kennel Club of India, the 3rd respondent. The 1st petitioner is said to be a licensed professional dog handler recognized by the 3rd respondent and claims to have bred dogs like Rottweiler, Cane Corso, Mastiffs etc. with regard to their behavior, socialization, obedience inter alia. He is said to have trained the Rottweiler of the 2nd respondent. What has driven these dog owners/breeders to this Court, is a Circular issued by Government of India through the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying imposing a ban on several breeds of dogs including those that are bred by the 1st petitioner. The reasons for issuance of the Circular appear, to be upon an order, passed by the High Court of Delhi in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm. Since the circular imposes a ban and importing of the said dogs, it travels a little further that the Government would sterilize all the breeds of dogs in India to stop further breeding. It is, therefore, the petitioners have rushed to this Court in the subject petition.

3. This Court in terms of its order dated 19-03-2024 granted an interim order of stay of the Circular insofar as it concerns the State of Karnataka. It appears that the other High Courts have also granted such stay after the interim order granted by this Court and the matters are pending consideration in the hands of those Courts.

4. Heard Sri R. Swaroop Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Sri.H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1, Smt.Navya.S.Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel along with Ms.Nikitha Surabhi, learned counsel appearing for PETA/intervening applicant.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITONERS:

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri R. Swaroop Anand would vehemently contend that the Circular that imposes a ban creates an embargo upon participation of Indian breed of dogs which are equivalent to international breeds which are now sought to be banned. He would quote an illustration of a breed by name Raja Palyam, which the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is equivalent to Rottweiler. He would further contend that the Department of Animal Husbandry has no power whatsoever to impose any ban of the kind that is now imposed, that too by a Circular. It is his contention that the Delhi High Court nowhere directed to impose a ban. It only directed consideration of representation. In all, he would seek quashment of the Circular.

THE UNION OF INDIA:

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India Sri K. Arvind Kamath, along with the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, would contend with vehemence that the Union of India cannot be held to be having de hors power to issue a circular. According to them, ferocious dogs have become a menace in several places of the country. The dog owners do not take responsibility of keeping dogs in control. It is their admission that the entire issue has sprung from the judgment of the High Court of Delhi directing consideration of the representation. They would admit that no stakeholders as was undertaken before the High Court of Delhi were heard in the matter. Even to the constitution of Committee of Experts, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit, on instructions, that t