In a judgment that has come as a shot in the arm for dog lovers across the country, the Madras High Court has set aside Directorate General of Foreign Trade’s (DGFT) April 25, 2016 notification imposing a ban on import of dogs into the country. The DGFT had ordered that only dogs that had been used as pets by the importers abroad; canines required for research by R&D organisations; and animals required for internal security by the defence and police force, could be imported.
Justice Anita Sumanth held that the notification had been issued without necessary scientific study and due diligence as called for. The verdict was delivered while allowing a batch of three writ petitions filed by Kennel Club of India (KCI), Madras Canine Club (MCC) and individual dog lover C.R. Bhaalakkrishna Bhat who insisted on allowing import of dogs to be used as pets, for participating in dog shows and for ethical breeding.
The judge pointed out that the trigger for the DGFT’s notification was a letter written on December 1, 2015 by then Union Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Sanjay Gandhi to the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries. A copy of the letter marked to the DGFT sought a blanket ban on import of dogs citing threat to the native species and also possibility of pathogens being carried by the imported animals.
However, debunking the fears, the judge wrote: “The absolute ban now imposed is on the basis that import of dogs for commercial breeding will bring foreign diseases to India as well as contaminate native gene pool. As far as import of alien diseases is concerned, there are effective measures for quarantine and testing of the animals prior to permitting entry into India. Thus, this can be no reason to justify the ban.”
On the fear of a possible threat to the native species due to import of dogs, she said, “While I have no doubt in my mind that all steps must be taken to protect and perpetrate original, native Indian breeds, this cannot be achieved by placing an embargo on the import of foreign dogs for commercial purposes, by ensuring, of course, that such commercial purposes are regulated by the State and are ethical.”
The judge said, at one time, there were several original native Indian breeds such as Taji, Bhutani, Banjari, Northern Dhole, Esquimaux dog, Southern Dhole, Saluki, Koochee, Bhotia (Himalayan Sheep dog and its varieties), Tripuri dog, Vaghari Hound, Maratha Mudhol or Pashmi Hound, Rajapalayam, Dhanagari, Poligar, Chippiparai – Thambai, Chippiarai – Raja, Patti dog, Bakharwal, Jonangi, Kombai, Sindhi, Pandikona, Lhasa, Alaknoori, Kaikadi, Kanni and Kurumalai.
“Today, it is moot as to how many of the aforesaid breeds survive. Even among those that do, the gene pool would surely have been diluted over the years... It is rather too late in the day to expect that anything can be done now to put the clock back to a time when there were pure native breeds, quite apart from the fact that there is no justification in doing so,” Justice Sumanth observed before insisting upon regulations on breeding.
The judge directed the State government to formulate, within eight weeks, a set of regulations for commercial breeding of dogs and place them before the court on August 5. The verdict was delivered with the assistance of senior counsel R. Srinivas for KCI, V. Selvaraj for MCC and after consulting Madras Veterinary College Dean R. Karunakaran and the college’s Deputy Librarian Sujatha who supplied books and literature to help the judge understand the subject of native dogs.
