The Gauhati High Court’s Kohima Bench recently set aside a 2020 order issued by the Nagaland government, which had imposed a ban on the sale and consumption of dog meat in the state.
A single bench of Justice Marli Vankung ruled that the government did not have the authority to ban dog meat without proper legal backing.
The court order stated, “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.”
The court reasoned that the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, which was used as the basis for the government’s order, does not provide any power to issue prohibition orders. It also noted that the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations do not address the consumption of dog meat, which is not surprising.
The court emphasized that dog meat consumption is limited to certain parts of the northeastern states and is considered unfamiliar in other parts of the country. It stated, “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… The consumption of dog meat appears to be an accepted norm and food amongst the Nagas even in modern times, wherein the petitioners are able to earn their livelihood by transporting dogs and selling dog meat.”
The court highlighted that, as per established law, only a Commissioner of Food Safety under the FSS Act, not the State’s Chief Secretary, has the authority to issue orders banning any meat in the state. While acknowledging that the current handling of dogs intended for slaughter is not completely sanitary or in compliance with the Slaughter House Rules, the court held that this does not justify a blanket ban.
To address concerns about cruelty towards dogs before they are killed, the court suggested enforcing provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Indian Penal Code.
Consequently, the petitioners’ appeal was allowed. Earlier, in November 2020, the High Court had stayed the Nagaland government’s order that had banned the import, trade, and sale of dog meat, issued on July 4 of the same year. The petitioners, who held licenses from the Kohima Municipal Council to sell dog meat, argued that the ban was essentially an executive order disguised as a Cabinet decision, adversely affecting livelihoods during the pandemic.
