On Wednesday, the Karnataka High Court nullified a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying Department.

This circular prohibited the rearing of specific breeds of dogs, citing their perceived ferocity and threat to human safety.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung has recorded the undertaking of Union of India that they would hear all stakeholders. It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders are heard. The composition of the committee is not in consonance with the Rule framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Union of India could not have imposed the ban without appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee.”

The Court emphasized that the "blanket ban" contradicts the existing rules in force. However, it clarified that overturning the circular does not prevent the central government from amending any rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, provided due legal procedures are followed.

The comprehensive order will be accessible on Monday. Earlier, on April 8, the court deferred its decision on a petition contesting the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying Department. This circular prohibited the rearing of specific dog breeds in the state, citing concerns about their perceived ferocity and threat to human safety.

Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, representing the Ministry, stated that the Delhi High Court had emphasized the importance of consulting all stakeholders. He confirmed that statutory stakeholders were consulted but acknowledged the necessity of extending this consultation to include bodies from civil society, particularly those representing the breeders association. The ASG committed to revisiting the process, ensuring consultation with all essential stakeholders.

Advocate Swaroop Anand R, representing the petitioner, contended that the technical expert committee established by the Ministry lacked domain experts. He highlighted that while the AQCS of the Central Zoo authority was part of the committee, their role primarily focused on animal quarantine for disease prevention. Additionally, he emphasized the necessity of implementing guidelines for large dogs, particularly regarding behavioral training. The petitioners expressed their willingness to support such guidelines.

The circular enforced a ban on several breeds of dogs, which included but were not limited to: Pitbull Terrier, Tosa 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 and Akita, Mastiffs (boerbulls), Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Wolf Dogs, Canario, Akbash dog, Moscow Guard dog, Cane corso, and any dog commonly referred to as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).

The circular also required those, who have reared the aforesaid breed of dogs as pets with them, to sterilise their pets and stop further breeding

Appearance: Advocate Swaroop Anand R for Petitioner.

Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath a/w Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H for Respondent.

Case Title: King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint Secretary

Case No: WP 8409/2024