The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench on June 5 quashed and set aside an order issued by the Nagaland Government on July 4, 2020 put a blanket ban on commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well a commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants. (File Photo)
Morung Express News
Kohima | June 5
In a historic judgement, the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench has quashed the Nagaland State Government’s July 4, 2020 order to put a blanket ban on commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well a commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants after a lengthy hearing of a civil writ petition on Friday.
A single judge headed by Justice Marli Vankun at the Kohima bench after hearing submissions made by the petitioners and responding parties including the Chief Secretary, Food safety commissioner, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the Kohima Municipal Council, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), People For Animals among others said it is constraint to set aside and quash the order.
The main issue for consideration is whether the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had acted beyond its delegated powers by issuing the circular dated 06.08.2014, stating that the Regulation 2.5 of the FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additives Regulation,2011 has defined animals, carcass and meat wherein sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) has defined “animal” and whether in pursuance of the circular the State of Nagaland had rightly issued the impugned notification 04.07.2020 dated, banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants, the Judge said.
The Court asked the Food Authority to make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made there under to carry out the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011/Regulation, 2011.
Pointing out that under the definition of ‘animals’, canine or dogs have not been mentioned, the Judge said that “is not surprising since the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the North Eastern states and the very idea of consuming dog meat is alien in other parts of the country. The thought of adding canine/dogs as an animal for human consumption under regulation 2.5.1(a) would be inconceivable, since consumption of dog meat would be considered unthinkable.”
Commenting that consumption of dog meat appears to be an accepted norm and food amongst the Nagas even in modern times, the Court observed that the petitioners are able to earn their livelihood by transporting dogs and selling of dog meat. “But, dog meat is not considered the standard of food for human consumption and excluded in the definition of animals safe for human consumption.”
The Court observed that “the prohibition of sale and consumption of dog meat, by the Executive branch of the Government, without there being any law passed by the legislation in relation to trade and consumption of dog meat is liable thus to be set aside even though the impugned notification dated 04.07.2020 is said to have been passed in accordance with a Cabinet decision.”
It also said that the Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the impugned ban order. “Section 30 of the FSS Act, 2006 provides for appointment of a Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under the Act,” the Court stated.
The Judge said the order can be said to affect the petitioner’s earning capacity as they “have an import/export permit, dated 03.06.2020, issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, which allows the petitioner to import dogs to Kohima and the petitioners have been earning their livelihood by selling dog meat for the past many years.”
Mention may be made that the petitioners who approached the court after the ban engaged in the supply and sale of dog and dog meat in Nagaland.
The ban had earlier been temporarily suspended in November 2020 by a single bench after the State Government respondents failed to respond to a petition against the prohibition on dog and dog meat called in effect by the State Government on July 4, 2020 citing provisions of the Food Safety & Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.
