IMPORTANT POINT
The executive branch cannot impose restrictions on fundamental rights without legislative backing, and the definitions in the Food Safety and Standards Act do not prohibit the consumption of dog meat.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

Heard Mr. L Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioners along with Ms. Shrieya Poropkarie, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 6 & 7, Ms. V Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. Limanaro, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 & 5

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of the appropriate writ for violation of the petitioners’ Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution and for violation of principles of natural justice, which according to the petitioners have been violated by Notification No. CSO/CORRES-19/CAB/2017 dated 04.07.2020, banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants, while, the petitioners have an Import/Export permit, dated 03.06.2020,issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, which allows the petitioner to import dogs to Kohima and have been earning their livelihood by selling dog meat for the past many years.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Iralu, submits that the impugned notification dated 04.07.2020 banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants was issued under the Food Safety Authority of India and under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006(Henceforth referred to as FSS Act,2006) and under Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 (Henceforth referred to as Regulation, 2011.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a circular dated 06.08.2014 issued by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India states that the Regulation 2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 has defined animals, carcass and meat and sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) has defined “animal”. Regulation2.5.1(a) of Regulation 2011, defines ‘animal’ as under:-“(a) ‘animal’ means an animal belonging to any of the species specified below:-

(i) Ovines;

(ii) Caprines;

(iii) Suilines

(iv) Bovines; and includes poultry and fish.”

The slaughtering of animals of any other species other than the one listed in sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) is not permissible under the FSS Act, 2006 and Regulation, 2011 and to strengthen the vigil and ensure the compliance of the provisions of FSS Act, 2006.

The impugned notification dated 04.07.2020 was then notified, by the State Government which states that the slaughtering of any other species other than the ones listed in Sub-Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Regulation is not permissible under the FSS Act and Regulation. And in order to regulate the safety of food articles safe for human consumption, the band on slaughtering and sale of dog meat in the State of Nagaland is found to be necessary. Thus, under the provisions of FSS Act and Regulation, the commercial import and trading of dog and dogs’ market and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants are band. Any person found violating this order shall be liable to be punished under Section 428 & 429 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his first contention is that the Regulation, 2011 has not expressly or impliedly prohibited slaughter of any specific animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a) of Regulation, 2011 for human consumption. Likewise, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has also not prohibited the slaughter of animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a) However, the Regulation,2011, has been wrongly interpreted by the Food Safety Authority of India and the state respondents, therefore the impugned notification dated 04.02.2020isnot in consonance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006/ FSS Act, 2006.

6. The learned counsel, Mr. L. Iralu, on elaborating the said contention submits that, the petitione