The Madras High Court issued a temporary injunction on Wednesday, preventing the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying from making a conclusive ruling regarding the classification of specific dog breeds as "ferocious and dangerous to human life." This decision halts the ongoing process of soliciting objections and feedback from various stakeholders on the proposed ban on importing and breeding these breeds.

Justice Anita Sumanth has directed that while the Ministry can proceed with gathering objections and comments, it must refrain from making a conclusive decision on the matter until June 14th.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan is expected to provide clarification by that date regarding a public notice issued on May 2, 2024, which invited feedback on the topic.

The interim order was issued in response to a writ petition filed by the Kennel Club of India (KCI), contesting the validity of the public notice. Senior Counsel R. Srinivas highlighted that a Joint Secretary to the Ministry had initially sent a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories on March 12, 2024, proposing to classify several breeds as "ferocious and dangerous to human life" and subsequently ban them.

The ban targeted several specific breeds, including 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 any dog commonly recognized as a Bandog.

The letter dated March 12, 2024, came under legal scrutiny across various High Courts in the country, and Justice Sumanth herself suspended its enforcement on March 29, 2024. Later, the Karnataka High Court invalidated the letter entirely, as it was issued based on recommendations from a committee devoid of any dog experts, Senior Counsel Mr. Srinivas explained, emphasizing that the ban is no longer in effect.

Even though the court ruling invalidated the ban, the Ministry's public notice on May 2 still referred to the ban imposed in the March 12 letter before soliciting objections and comments. Senior Counsel highlighted that this reference was legally flawed. He argued that the Ministry should initiate the process anew by forming a fresh committee comprising dog experts, without any mention or reliance on the previous decision.

Agreeing with Senior Counsel's perspective, Justice Sumanth emphasized to the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) that the Ministry should have initiated the process without any reference to the invalidated March 12 letter. She expressed her expectation for the Ministry to start afresh without linking to the quashed decision. Justice Sumanth urged the ASG to seek instructions regarding the Ministry's willingness to either file an affidavit in court or issue a corrigendum, clarifying that the March 12 decision would hold no influence on the current proceedings.