SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

import of dogs case stay full order order judge anitha sumanth

by ·

W.P.No.8927 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9951, 9956 & 9955 of 2024 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents and seeks some time to obtain instructions and file a counter. He is represented by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned ASG.

  1. Since the subject-matter relates to dangerous animal regulation, State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Fort St.George, Chennai is suo motu impleaded as R4. Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the newly impleaded
    respondent. Registry to correct array.
  2. The challenge in this writ petition is to OM dated
    12.03.2024 issued by the Joint Secretary to Ministry of Animal
    Husbandry and Dairying coming under R1 and Instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs / R3, on 14.03.2024.
  3. The brief facts relevant to decide the aspect of prima facie case are set out under impugned order dated 12.03.2024. That order states that there have been reports of death of humans on account of dog bites by ‘some ferocious breeds of dogs kept as pet’. The Government is stated to have been receiving representations from various citizens forums and Animal Welfare Associations that some breeds must not be kept as pets.
  4. A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court (WP No.15673 of 2023) that came to be disposed on 06.12.2023
    directing that the representation of that petitioner be disposed expeditiously. Pursuant thereto, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying constituted an expert committee. The
    details of constituents of that Committee is unavailable as of now. Certain breeds have been identified as ferocious and endangering human lives. The basis of such classification, as dangerous, is also
    unknown.
  5. The breeds classified as ferocious / dangerous are:-
    “breeds (including mixed and cross breeds) like
    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
    (Boer bulls), Rottweiler, Terriers, Rhodesian
    Ridgeback, Wolf Dogs, Canario, Akbash dog, Moscow Guard dog, Cane Corso, and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or
    Bandog).”
  6. All the above are foreign breeds, that would only be kept as pets. The impugned orders do not reveal any scientific or empirical data that was placed before the expert committee upon which the above classification was made. Incidentally, it is public knowledge that a large part of dog bites are by stray dogs but the OM does not take into account this aspect of the matter.
  7. The Committee has, in fine, recommended that the dog breeds stipulated above, including cross breeds, shall be prohibited from being imported, bred and sold as pet dogs or ‘other purpose’. The phrase ‘other purpose’ is vague. Local bodies have been directed to issue and implement guidelines to ensure that no licences and permits are issued for sale of the above dog breeds or for their maintenance as pets.
  8. As regards as the existing pet dogs of the above breeds, they have been directed to be sterilized. In regard to the last stipulation, Schedule VII/List 2/Entry 15 under the Constitution of India deals with ‘preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice’. This is thus a State subject and to this extent, the direction under the impugned OM is, prima facie, bad in law.
  9. Impugned Instruction dated 14.03.2024 issued by R3 does not contain reference to any statutory provision under which it has been issued. Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers R3 to issue instructions to customs officers for the purpose of
    uniformity in classification or for the implementation of provisions of
    the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Such instructions relate to prohibition, restriction or procedure for import or export of goods.
  10. The impugned Instruction is a consequence of O.M. dated 12.03.2024 which itself has, prima facie, been found to be legally deficient for the reasons encapsulated in the paragraphs supra.
  11. That apart, the power vested in the Board under Section 151A to prohibit or restrict, is premised on either the
    implementation of the provisions of the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. Impugned OM dated 12.03.2024
    does not prima facie satisfy the stipulation of ‘any other law for the time being in force’.
  12. The impugned OM & Instruction are the subject-matter of challenge in other High Courts as well. The Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts have granted an absolute stay of the same whereas the Kerala and Calcutta High Courts have granted a partial stay except on the ban on import and sale of the dogs.
  13. In light of the discussion as above, interim stay effective until further orders.
  14. List on 29.04.2024. Counter of the respondents prior thereto with copies served in advance on the petitioner.
    28.03.2024
    ssm
    Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J. ssm
    W.P.No.8927 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.9951, 9956 & 9955 of 2024
    28.03.2024

You may also like...