Morung Express News
Dimapur | April 29
With the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) delivering a split verdict in the challenge single judge verdict quashing Nagaland’s 2020 notification banning commercial dog trade and sale of dog meat, the matter is likely to be placed before a third judge and is expected to be placed before the Chief Justice for further orders.
As per the judgment delivered on April 22, the GHCKB Division Bench of Justice Budi Habung and Justice Robin Phukan differed on key legal issues in two writ appeals filed against a June 2, 2023 single-judge judgment that had quashed the July 4, 2020 state notification.
Accordingly, the case does not attain finality.
“In view of the divergence of opinion, the Registry is directed to apprise the matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice and to seek appropriate order on the administrative side,” Justice Phukan wrote in his separate opinion, according to the copy of the judgment uploaded on the court’s website.
The appeals were filed by animal welfare organisations including People For Animals, Humane Society International/India and Akhil Bharat Krushi Go Seva Sangh.
The 2020 notification had banned commercial import and trading of dogs, dog markets, and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine-in restaurants.
The original petitioners were traders who argued that the ban affected their livelihood and that they had been operating under licences issued by the Kohima Municipal Council.
Opposing views
Justice Habung upheld the single-judge ruling and dismissed the appeals. He reasoned that Regulation 2.5.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Regulations, 2011, prescribes standards for specified animals but does not expressly prohibit the consumption of animals not listed.
He stated the omission of dogs cannot automatically be read as a statutory ban and noted that a 2014 FSSAI circular lacked the statutory backing to create a substantive prohibition.
Justice Habung also held that the power to prohibit food articles vests in the Commissioner of Food Safety, not the Chief Secretary, and noted a lack of scientific evidence proving dog meat is inherently unsafe.
In his dissent, Justice Phukan held the state ban should be sustained.
He reasoned that since dogs are not defined as “animals” under Regulation 2.5.1(a), they are excluded from lawful slaughter. Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, he argued the express mention of certain species implies the exclusion of dogs.
He further held that the FSS Act has an overriding effect over local permissions. Justice Phukan maintained that Article 256 obligates states to enforce Parliamentary laws, making the notification a valid exercise of executive authority.
He noted that the right to trade is subject to public health restrictions and observed that since traders did not base their case on custom, Article 371A protections were not attracted.
With the judges divided, the matter may now be placed before the Chief Justice for further course of action while status quo continues.
.png)
