Defending Livelihoods, Challenging Arbitrary Dog Bans

The Delhi High Court has requested a response from the Centre following a petition filed by a dog breeder who asserts their right to livelihood in opposition to the prohibition on ‘ferocious’ dog breeds.

The petition contends that there has been no research conducted within India to substantiate the claim that the specified dog breeds are inherently aggressive and necessitate a ban.

Justice Subramonium Prasad has directed the central government to provide its stance on the matter in response to the plea filed by a professional dog breeder and a doctor with a keen interest in specialized dog breeds. The plea argues that no comprehensive studies were undertaken to determine the alleged ferocity of the breeds in question and challenges the constitutionality of the directive which restricts one’s ability to engage in any lawful profession, trade, or business.

The ban, issued on March 12, prohibits the sale and breeding of 23 breeds of dogs classified as ferocious, including Pitbull Terriers, American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, and Mastiffs, citing an increase in incidents of pet dog attacks. The directive also mandates the sterilization of existing pets of these breeds to prevent further breeding.

The petition asserts that the decision was made without adequate consultation with relevant stakeholders and discriminates against individuals involved in dog training professions.

Both petitioners argue that the ban infringes upon their fundamental rights, jeopardizes their livelihoods, and undermines efforts to promote responsible dog breeding and preserve unique dog breeds.

They claim that the notification disrupts the cohesion of the dog breeding community and hampers the dissemination of valuable expertise and knowledge.

Furthermore, the plea emphasizes the lack of empirical evidence supporting the assertion that the banned breeds are inherently dangerous, labeling the blanket ban as arbitrary and unconstitutional.