File photo of a dog for sale at a market in Dimapur. (Morung File Photo)
Morung Express news
Kohima | September 14
Following the State Government’s blanket ban on the trade and sale of dogs and dog meat in Nagaland in July this year, aggrieved persons in Kohima, engaged in the business have filed a petition at the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench challenging its legal basis and jurisdiction.
The petition, a copy of which was made available to The Morung Express today contested the basis of the notification stating that it “is not legally sustainable and brings up serious legal flaws.” The prohibition was 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.
The petition stated that the notification wrongly interprets and relies on the FSS Act and Regulations, 2011. “It cannot stand the test of law and deserves to be struck down for being unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary,” it said.
The petitioners, who earlier made their livelihoods by engaging in the trading of dogs and dog meat in Kohima, also had their licenses and permits issued by the Kohima Municipal Council (KMC).
The FSS Act, the PCA Act and the Wildlife Act have to be read harmoniously, the petition averred.
While the State Government’s notification rested on the construction that slaughtering of any other species of animal other than the ones listed under the regulation, the petitioners said that neither the Act nor the Regulation specify that animals not included under ovines (sheeps); caprines (goats); suillines (pig/pig family); bovines (cattle); and poultry and fish are prohibited from being slaughtered for human consumption.
“The definition of ‘animal’ contained in the regulation is only for the purpose of maintaining or regulating the standards of the meat of those animals specified. Merely because a standard has not been specified does not render other species of animals from being barred from slaughter for consumption,” it claimed.
Further submitting that consumption of dog meat would not attract any offence under the PCA Act, it said that the definition of ‘animal’ provided under the act is wide enough to include dogs, and any act done in the process of preparing dogs as food for human consumption without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering would not amount to cruelty.
Claims ‘violation of natural justice’
It also underscored that the notification violates the “fundamental rights of the petitioners” and the “principle of natural justice” noting that the prohibition requires the presence of objective data to be collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act.
It has neither been passed by the Commissioner of Food Safety nor no notice has been issued to the petitioners, it added.
On grounds of violation to fundamental rights, the petition further stated that articles 19(1)(g) and 21 have been violated where out of this business, the petitioners make their livelihoods. And as enshrined in Article 21, the right of the petitioners and their customers to eat dog meat is part of their right to privacy, it said.
“In addition to the loss in business that the petitioners are currently facing, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the notification is not stayed” it argued.
Questions process used to pass order
The petition meanwhile stated that even if an order for prohibition in the interest of public health is to be issued under the Act, such a notification/order can be issued only by the appropriate authority for a limited period, and presupposes the existence of an objective scientific data collected as per the procedure established by the Act.
It said that prohibitory orders can only be passed by the appropriate authority if it is found upon objective scientific data that the article of food is unsafe for human consumption. The petition argued that the Chief Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue a prohibition order.
The petition said that in this case, the Executive has taken the decision to pass the notification “without routing it through the Legislature,” later noting that the State has no competence to pass the notification through an executive fiat. Further it submitted that the notification violates article 304(b) of the Constitution as the right to freedom to trade in dogs has been violated by an executive fiat which is not permissible under article 304(b).
As an interim measure, it appealed for suspension of operation of the notification and for setting aside the notification and cabinet decision. The petition was earlier filed on September 2 and was listed for motion today.
