Advertisement
Justice Subramonium Prasad asked the central government to respond to the plea filed by a professional dog breeder and a doctor who was an ”enthusiast of special category dogs”.
The plea claimed no studies were conducted to conclude that the breeds were ”ferocious” and ought to be banned and that the direction violated one’s right to practice any profession, trade or business, guaranteed under the Constitution.
On March 12, the Centre directed states to ban the sale and breeding of 23 breeds of ferocious dogs, including Pitbull Terriers, American Bulldog, Rottweilers and Mastiffs, amid rising instances of pet dog attacks.
Related Articles
Advertisement
In a letter dated March 12 to chief secretaries of all states and UTs, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying also said that these breeds of dogs, which have already been kept as pets, should be sterilised to prevent further breeding.
The petition said the decision was taken without including the key stakeholders in the consultation process and it discriminated against individuals involved in the profession of dog training.
”Both Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 represent individuals directly affected by the Impugned Notification, as it infringes upon their fundamental rights, threatens their livelihoods, and undermines their collective efforts to promote responsible dog breeding practices and preserve special dog breeds,” it said.
”By stifling the activities of enthusiasts and organisations committed to preserving purebred dog breeds, the notification disrupts the fabric of the dog breeding community and curtails the dissemination of valuable knowledge and expertise,” it claimed.
The plea further said no study had been conducted to conclude that the banned breeds were ”ferocious” and ought to be banned.
”There is no data which indicates that it is these dogs that have caused terror which warrant their ban. An arbitrary and blanket ban on 23 dog breeds is therefore violative of the Constitution of India,” it stated.