Why Nagaland government's dog meat sale ban failed legal test
The Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court, headed by Justice Marli Vankung, ruled that the government could not have banned dog meat without there being any legal backing to the same.
FollowThe Gauhati High Court recently set aside and quashed the Nagaland government's July 2020 order 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 Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court, headed by Justice Marli Vankung, ruled that the government could not have banned dog meat without there being any legal backing to the same.
Here are some key points highlighted by the court in its ruling:
* Regulation 2.5.1(a) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 defines the animals meant for human consumption, ensuring their safety and suitability. Canine or dogs are not mentioned in this definition, as the consumption of dog meat is uncommon in most parts of the country. However, the court acknowledges that dog meat is consumed by certain tribes in Nagaland.
* While the consumption of dog meat is accepted among the Nagas, it is not considered a standard food for human consumption and is excluded from the definition of animals safe for consumption.
* Regulation 2.5 of Regulation 2011 only governs the processing of the animals mentioned, and there is no provision prohibiting the slaughter of any other animal for human consumption.
* According to the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006, the definition of food is broad and includes any substance intended for human consumption. Since the act does not define 'animal' as mentioned in the regulation, it can be interpreted to include dog meat.
* The disputed notification affects the petitioner's ability to earn a livelihood. While the right to earn a livelihood and the freedom to choose one's food can be restricted by reasonable laws, it should be done so with proper justification.
* The photos provided suggest that the dogs meant for slaughter have been subjected to discomfort, pain, and suffering. The prescribed standards for slaughterhouses and prevention of cruelty to animals do not appear to have been followed. However, these observations alone do not justify the complete ban on the import, trading, and sale of dog meat.
* The Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the contested order. The FSS Act, 2006 provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Food Safety for efficient implementation of food safety standards.
* The prohibition of sale and consumption of dog meat, enforced by the Executive branch without legislation, is liable to be set aside, even if the decision was based on a Cabinet decision.
