In view of this, The Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying from taking a final decision on the ongoing process of collecting objections and comments from cross section of people on classifying some specific breeds of dogs as “ferocious and dangerous to human life” leading to their importation prohibition and breeding.
The Ministry would continue receiving the objections and comments but remain barred from making any final decision until June 14. By that date Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan was expected to take instructions with regard to a public notice dated May 2, 2024 inviting comments on an ambiguous matter when he would clarify certain things.
The petitioner had challenged the public notice through his writ petition which was heard by Justice Anita Sumanth. R. Srinivas who appeared for him told the court that a Joint Secretary to the Ministry wrote a letter on March 12, 2024 addressed to Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories banning several breeds after classifying them as “ferocious and dangerous to human life.”
The following breeds were banned: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa Inu, American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd, Caucasian Shepherd, South Asian Shepherd , Tornjak , Sarplaninac , Japanese Tosa , Akita , Mastiffs (boerbulls), Rottweiler , Terriers , Rhodesian Ridgeback , Wolf dogs , Canario , Akbash , Moscow Guard , Cane Corso and every dog of the type commonly known as Bandog.
On March 12th 2024 a letter was sent out by one official in the Ministry recommending it based on classification of these dogs as “ferocious dangerous or harmful”. Notably, the letter was also stayed by Justice Sumanth herself on March 29 2024. According to Mr. Srinivas, the Karnataka High Court had later struck down the letter in toto after finding that it had been issued on the recommendations of a committee which did not consist of even a single dog expert and therefore there was no ban.
But, despite this ruling, there is reference to the ban imposed under the March 12 letter by Ministry’s May 2 public notice soliciting comments and objections on this issue. This reference according to senior counsel was bad in law since it should have called for Ministry constituting a fresh committee with experts who know about dogs and without necessarily relying on previous decision.
The court agreed with him that when initiating process ministry could have done away with anything that would refer to already quashed letter but actually referred to it. She thus asked the officer about if he could make consultations as to whether his client would file an affidavit or correct himself by saying that what happened on march 12th has no relation with the current step.
