‘Appears To Be An Accepted Food Among Nagas Even In Modern Times’: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Prohibition On Sale Of Dog Meat In Nagaland

The Gauhati High Court at Kohima recently quashed the notification dated July 4, 2020 issued by Chief Secretary, Nagaland Government banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants.

While quashing the notification, the single judge bench of Justice Marli Vankung observed:

“……….this court is constraint to hold that the Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the impugned order dated 04.07.2020 when section 30 of the FSS Act, 2006 provides for appointment of a Commissioner of Food Safety for the state for efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under the Act.”

The petitioners had the Import/Export permit dated June 3, 2020 issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, which allowed them to import dogs to Kohima and earn their livelihood by selling dog meat. However, the Chief Secretary vide impugned notification dated July 4, 2020 ordered for banning the commercial import, trading of dogs and dog markets as well as commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants.

Aggrieved by the impugned notification, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the appropriate writ alleging violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution as well as for violation of principles of natural justice.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a circular dated August 06, 2014 issued by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India states that the Regulation 2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011  has defined animals, carcass and meat, and sub-regulation 2.5.1(a) has defined ‘animal’ which does not include dogs or canine.

It was further submitted that the impugned notification was then notified, by the State Government which states that the slaughtering of any other species other than the ones listed in Sub-Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the Regulation is not permissible under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and Regulation and in order to regulate the safety of food articles safe for human consumption, the ban on slaughtering and sale of dog meat in the State of Nagaland is found to be necessary.

It was contended that the Regulation, 2011 has not expressly or impliedly prohibited slaughter of any specific animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a) of Regulation, 2011 for human consumption. Similarly, the FSS Act has also not prohibited the slaughter of animals not mentioned in regulation 2.5.1(a), it was argued.

It was argued that the petitioners have been dealing with supply and selling of dogs meat and have been earning their likelihood as such for the past many years. That is the culture and custom of the Nagas to eat dog’s meat which has been mentioned in some to the earliest ethnographical and anthropological accounts of the Nagas, the court was told.

It was contended that the definition of ‘animal’ provided in the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal’s Act, 1960 (PC Act) is wide enough to include dog and any act done in the process of transporting, slaughter and preparing dog meat as food item for human consumption, without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering would not amount to cruelty under the PC Act.

The Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Section 30 of the FSS Act mandates the State Government to appoint the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State to implement the provisions of the FSS Act within the State and Nagaland Government has appointed its Commissioner & Secretary as the Commissioner of Food Safety, therefore, the Chief Secretary, has no authority to issue the impugned notification under the FSS Act, 2006.

It was further argued that the Executive branch of the Government (the impugned notification was passed in pursuance to the cabinet decision) is not competent to pass the impugned notification, without there being any law passed by the legislation in relation to trade and consumption of dog meat.

The counsel submitted that the impugned notification has violated fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 and legal right under Article 304(b) of the Constitution.

However, the Counsel appearing for the Kohima Municipal Council (KMC) and FSSAI submitted that mere temporary trade licenses from the Municipal Corporations do not permit the petitioners to carry out food business in meat trade and the temporary Import/Export Permit issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, permitting the petitioners to import dogs from all over India, has been wrongly issued as dog meat trade is not permissible all over India.

It was further submitted that the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution does not grant the petitioners to carry out illegal dog meat trade as part of the unlicensed and unregistered food businesses in terms of the FSS Act and Regulations.

It was pointed that Article 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public and to protect the common good of the people.

It was submitted that the Chief Secretary has a constitutional duty under Article 256 of the Constitution to ensure the public safety and the well-being of the citizens and has the full authority to issue the impugned notification since the consumption of dog’s meat is against the interest of health of the people.

The court noted that the definition of ‘animals’ under the Regulation 2011, does not include canine or dogs since the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the North Eastern states and the very idea of consuming dog meat is alien in other parts of the country.

The court further observed that 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.

“This court however, do not find any grounds not to accept the account of dog meat being consumed by different tribes in Nagaland... There is also a belief that dog meat is also to having medicinal value. 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 of dog meat. But, dog meat is not considered the standard of food for human consumption and excluded in the definition of animals safe for human consumption.”

The court further observed that the FSSAI was delegated the power to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption by make regulations consistent with the Act.

“On perusal of section 16 of the FSS Act 2006, wherein the Duties and Functions of the Food Authority is listed it is seen that there is no mention of power to issue prohibition orders by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India thus it appears that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India have acted beyond its duties and function under section 16 of the FSS Act, 2006,” the court said.

The court noted that remedial steps can be taken for enforcing the various provisions of law under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the IPC.

It was pointed by the court that the petitioners have Import/Export permit issued by the Kohima Municipal Council, which allows the petitioner to import dogs to Kohima and the petitioners have been earning their livelihood by selling dog meat for the past many years.

The court noted that the impugned notification can be said to affect the petitioner’s earning capacity.

“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,” it added.

Case Title: Neizevolie Kuotsu alias Toni Kuotsu and 2 Ors. v. The State of Nagaland & 6 Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 65

Coram: Justice Marli Vankung

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment