Karnataka High Court’s Decision on Dangerous Dogs

Source: Indian Express

Introduction

Recently, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant blow to the Centre Government's efforts to regulate the ownership of certain dog breeds deemed dangerous. The court's decision, delivered on 10^th April 2024, nullified a circular issued by the Centre in March 2024, which sought to impose restrictions on the sale, breeding, and keeping of 23 specific dog breeds, including well-known breeds like pit bulls, rottweilers, and mastiffs.

What is the Background of the Circular?

• The circular, issued by Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, aimed to address concerns regarding human fatalities caused by dog bites, particularly from breeds perceived as “ferocious”.
• It mandated state authorities to refrain from issuing licenses or permissions for the sale, breeding, or keeping of these breeds, while also advocating for their sterilization.

What are Legal Challenges?

• However, the circular faced immediate legal challenges.
• The Karnataka High Court, on 19^th March 2024, stayed its implementation following a petition that questioned the legitimacy of the expert committee's decision-making process.
• The petitioners argued that stakeholders, including reputed organizations like the Kennel Club of India, were not adequately consulted.
• Similar concerns were echoed by the Calcutta High Court, which partially stayed the circular, and the Delhi High Court, which sought the Centre's response to a plea challenging the circular.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Karnataka High Court's recent verdict emphasized the necessity of an appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee, inclusive of all stakeholders, before imposing such bans.
• It highlighted that the composition of the expert committee, as mandated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, was not in line with established rules.
• Moreover, the court expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects of a blanket ban on these breeds, particularly given existing regulations governing dog control programs.

What are Implications and Future Course of Action?

• The court's decision raises pertinent questions about the scientific basis and procedural fairness of regulatory interventions concerning animal welfare.
• It underscores the importance of comprehensive consultation with relevant stakeholders and adherence to established protocols in formulating such policies.
• Additionally, the verdict necessitates a reevaluation of the approach towards addressing public safety concerns related to dog breeds, balancing regulatory measures with considerations for animal rights and welfare.

What will be Challenges Ahead?

• Moving forward, it is imperative for authorities to address the underlying concerns raised by the courts and stakeholders regarding the regulation of "dangerous" dog breeds.
• This entails fostering dialogue and collaboration between policymakers, experts, and advocacy groups to develop evidence-based strategies that prioritize both public safety and animal welfare.
• Furthermore, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in the decision-making process to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of regulatory interventions.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court's decision to strike down the circular on "dangerous" dog breeds signifies a crucial victory for stakeholders advocating for procedural fairness and evidence-based policymaking in matters concerning animal welfare. While this ruling marks a significant setback for the Centre's regulatory efforts, it also presents an opportunity to reevaluate existing approaches and chart a more inclusive and effective path forward.