Madras HC Mandates 'Clean Slate' for 'Ferocious' Dog Ban Review; Quashed Govt. Order Irrelevant, Canine Experts Essential in New Committee - 2024-06-14

Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Orders Fresh, Unbiased Review for 'Ferocious' Dog Breed Ban, Mandates Canine Expert Involvement

Chennai, India – The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on June 14, 2024, has directed the Union Government to conduct a fresh and transparent process for considering a potential ban on the import and keeping of certain dog breeds deemed "ferocious." Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth emphasized that this new deliberation must be untainted by a previously quashed government communication and its underlying committee report, and mandated the inclusion of canine behavior experts in any future committee.

The order came in a writ petition (W.P.No.14610 of 2024) filed by The Kennel Club of India (KCI), which challenged a public notice issued on May 2, 2024, by the Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying (DAHD).

Background of the Controversy

The dispute originated from a D.O. (Demi-Official) letter dated March 12, 2024, based on a committee report that identified 25 dog breeds as "ferocious and dangerous for human life," recommending a ban on their import. This D.O. letter faced challenges in several courts. Notably, the Karnataka High Court, in W.P.No.8409 of 2024, quashed the said D.O. letter, pointing out "fallacies even in the constitution of the Expert Committee" and highlighting the absence of "any expert on dogs in that Committee."

Despite this, the DAHD issued a new public notice on May 2, 2024, inviting comments and objections regarding the proposal, but referenced the already quashed D.O. letter.

Petitioner's Apprehensions and Court's Intervention

The Kennel Club of India, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. R. Srinivas, argued that referencing the quashed D.O. letter in the new public notice was improper. They expressed a "legitimate apprehension" that the fresh proceedings might simply "toe the line of the earlier proceedings," which were found flawed.

In an earlier hearing on June 5, 2024, Justice Sumanth had noted the court's prima facie concurrence with the petitioner's concerns, stating, "What ought to have been done is for the process to have been re-commenced afresh without there having been any reference to the D.O. letter/ Committee report." The court had sought assurances from the government that the process would begin on a "clean slate."

Government Assures a Fresh Start

Responding to the court, the Joint Commissioner of the DAHD submitted a clarification via email on June 13, 2024. The government explicitly stated:

"The D.O. Letter dated 12.03.2024 has no relevance while considering the subject matter a fresh. Thus, it is explicitly stated that the quashed circular has lost its effect entirely. Furthermore, it is made clear that all actions will proceed afresh, and strictly implementing the court orders in letter and spirit.”

Court's Directives for a Fair Process

Accepting the government's assurance, Justice Sumanth found that the clarification would "make it more than abundantly clear that the authorities intend to approach the matter afresh," thereby alleviating the petitioner's concerns.

The Court issued the following key directives:

1. Fresh Consideration: The entire process of deciding whether a ban on certain dog breeds is necessary, and which breeds might be classified as 'ferocious', must be undertaken anew.
2. Irrelevance of Quashed Order: The previously quashed D.O. letter of March 12, 2024, and the committee report it was based on, are to be considered as having "lost its effect entirely" and hold "no relevance."
3. Expert Committee Composition: Crucially, the Court directed, "Needless to say, any Expert Committee constituted would contain sufficient representations of persons who are experts on canines, especially canine behaviour and psychology." This addresses a primary flaw identified in the earlier committee.
4. Transparency and Public Participation: The process must "continue in a transparent and open manner." The deadline for public comments and objections was extended from May 30, 2024, to June 30, 2024, as agreed by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan.
5. PETA Intervention: An impleading petition by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India was not ordered, as the court deemed it unnecessary in light of the government's clarification and the court's directives.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principles of administrative fairness and natural justice, ensuring that policy decisions, especially those with wide-ranging impact, are made after due, unbiased consideration and expert consultation. By mandating the inclusion of canine experts, the court aims to ensure that any future classification of dog breeds is based on scientific understanding of canine behavior rather than perception alone.

The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directives, with no costs imposed. The decision paves the way for a more credible and informed national dialogue on the complex issue of managing potentially dangerous dog breeds.