The Karnataka High Court struck down the association's circular banning 23 'dangerous and ferocious' dog breeds.
Karnataka High Court overturns ban on certain dog breeds due to lack of stakeholder consultation. Focus on responsible pet ownership urged.
On Wednesday, the Karnataka High Court invalidated the directive issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying Department, which prohibits the raising of specific breeds of dogs due to their perceived ferocity and potential danger to human safety.
In a ruling delivered by Justice M Nagaprasanna, sitting as a single judge, it was stated that the actions originating from the High Court of Delhi, which prompted the contested measure, involved an assurance from the Union of India to solicit input from all concerned parties. However, it was observed that none of these stakeholders were consulted. Additionally, it was noted that the composition of the committee tasked with recommending such a ban did not adhere to the regulations outlined in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Consequently, the Union of India was deemed to have overstepped by imposing the ban without the requisite recommendation from a duly constituted committee.
The court criticized the "blanket ban," asserting that it contravenes existing regulations. Nonetheless, it clarified that the annulment of the circular would not hinder the Central government from amending any rules established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, provided due legal procedures are followed. The court further stipulated that should such a ban resurface, stakeholders must be given a voice, defining stakeholders not as every individual pet owner, but rather as organizations certified to represent the breeds in question. The intervention sought by PETA, as a company, would also be considered by the Union of India if it introduces new legislation.
Moreover, the court recommended a focus on "responsible pet ownership," advocating for pet owners to be held accountable for their dogs' actions, irrespective of their temperament. This accountability, the court suggested, should extend beyond verbal assurances to encompass full responsibility for the treatment of any individual injured by the dog, including potential compensation for damages.
| Follow the Hindeez on Google News |  |
| Follow the Hindeez channel on WhatsApp |  |
We hate spam as much as you do
© Hindeez 2024, All Rights Reserved
