Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by two individuals, a dog breeder and a dog owner, challenging a circular dated 12-03-2024 issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying that imposed a ban on several breeds of dogs deemed ferocious. The petitioners contended that the circular was issued without jurisdiction, as the Department had no power to impose such a ban, and without any stakeholder consultation, despite an undertaking given to the Delhi High Court in a prior public interest litigation. The Delhi High Court had merely directed the Union of India to consider a representation after consulting all stakeholders and to decide within three months. The circular, however, prohibited the breeding and sale of certain breeds and directed their sterilization. The High Court of Karnataka had earlier, on 19-03-2024, stayed the operation of the circular in the State of Karnataka. During the final hearing, the Additional Solicitor General conceded that no stakeholders were heard and undertook that the Union would not enforce the circular until the exercise of consultation and an expert committee report were completed. An intervenor, PETA, raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, arguing the petitioners were not registered owners, and also highlighted the dangers posed by ferocious dogs. The Court, while not deciding the maintainability issue, held that the petition could not be disposed of merely on the Union's statement, as the circular had not been withdrawn. Tracing the genesis of the circular to the Delhi High Court order, the Court observed that the order only required consideration of a representation after stakeholder hearing, not a blanket ban. The Court concluded that in the peculiar circumstances, the challenge deserved an answer, and the circular remained ineffective until proper compliance. The operative part of the order, as available, indicates that the petition was disposed of with directions effectively continuing the stay and mandating stakeholder consultation before any enforcement, thereby upholding the petitioners' grievance regarding procedural impropriety.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Executive Circular - Procedural Impropriety - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226; Circular No. D.O.V-11/1/2024-ANLM.DADF dated 12.03.2024 - The Union of India admitted that no stakeholders were heard before issuing the circular banning certain dog breeds, despite an undertaking before the Delhi High Court to do so. The Court held that mere deferment of enforcement did not rectify the defect and the circular could not be enforced until proper consultation and expert report were completed (Paras 6-8). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability and Disposal of Petition - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - An intervenor challenged the locus standi of the petitioners, but the Court did not dismiss the petition on that ground. The Court held that the petition could not be closed merely on the Union's statement that it would not enforce the circular, as there was no withdrawal, only deferment, necessitating judicial scrutiny (Paras 7-8). C) Animal Welfare - Regulation of Dog Breeds - Ban on Ferocious Dogs - The circular was issued following a Delhi High Court order that only directed consideration of a representation. The Court traced the genesis and observed that the Union's circular went beyond the court's direction by imposing a ban without due process (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the circular dated 12-03-2024 imposing a ban on certain dog breeds is valid in the absence of stakeholder consultation as directed by the Delhi High Court, and whether the petition can be closed on the Union's undertaking to not enforce the circular without proper compliance
Final Decision
The Court, noting the Union's undertaking not to enforce the circular until stakeholder consultation is redone, held that the petition should not be closed merely on deferment of implementation. The Court traced the genesis to the Delhi High Court order and observed procedural impropriety. The petition was disposed of with directions continuing the stay on the circular until compliance with stakeholder consultation and expert report.
Law Points
- Failure to conduct stakeholder consultation undermines validity of circular
- executive circular imposing ban must comply with procedural undertakings given to court
- mere deferment of implementation does not make petition infructuous
- court can proceed to examine challenge on merits
