Gauhati high court quashes Nagaland government’s ban on sale of dog meat

The state cabinet had on July 2020 imposed a ban on the commercial import and trading of dogs, dog markets and the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked

The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati high court has quashed the Nagaland government’s order to ban the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in restaurants.

The ban was temporarily suspended in November 2020 by a single bench of the high court. (Gauhati high court)

A bench headed by Justice Marli Vankun pronounced the verdict on June 2 stating that the chief secretary of Nagaland was not the appropriate authority to issue the ban order dated July 4, 2020.

The state cabinet had imposed a ban on the commercial import and trading of dogs, dog markets and the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked.

The ban was temporarily suspended in November 2020 by a single bench of the high court after the state government respondents failed to respond to a petition against the prohibition citing provisions of the Food Safety & Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.

The plea was filed by traders licensed under the Kohima municipal council for importing dogs and selling dog meat, challenging the legal basis and jurisdiction regarding the ban.

The petitioners felt that the government notification wrongly interpreted and relied on the Food Safety Act.

The court maintained that the focal point to consider is whether the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had acted beyond its delegated powers by issuing its August 2014 circular stating that regulation 2.5 of the Food Product Standards and Food Additives Regulation 2011 has defined animals, carcass and meat wherein sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) has defined “animal”, and whether in pursuance of the circular the state of Nagaland had rightly issued the impugned notification of July 4 2020.

The judge pointed out that canine or dogs were not mentioned under the definition of ‘animals’, adding that it is not surprising as the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the northeastern states.

The high court stated that the petitioners are able to earn their livelihood by transporting dogs and selling dog meat.

However, it remarked that dog meat is not considered the standard of food for human consumption and is excluded in the definition of animals safe for human consumption.