REGULATION OF DOG MEAT IN NAGALAND
WHY IN NEWS ?
- Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court recently quashed a 2020 government notification, which had banned the trade and sale of dog meat in Nagaland.
MORE ABOUT THE NEWS:
- An order issued on July 4, 2020, by the office of the Chief Secretary of Nagaland had banned dog markets, the commercial import and trading of dogs, as well as the commercial sale of dog meat in markets and in dine-in restaurants.
- The Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court recently quashed a 2020 government notification, which had banned the trade and sale of dog meat in Nagaland.
GOVERNMENTS STAND AND NOTIFICATION:
- A 2014 circular by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) stating that the slaughter of any species other than the ones listed in Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 is not permissible.
- The Nagaland government order had stated that the ban was necessary to “regulate the safety of food articles safe for human consumption”.
ANIMALS LISTED IN REGULATION:
- Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the 2011 Regulations defines “animal” as any animal belonging to the species of ovines [sheep family], caprines [goat family], suillines [pig family], bovine [cattle], and including poultry and fish.
COURTS OBSERVATION ON THIS ISSUE:
- In its judgement, the court observed that the absence of dogs from the listed animals is “not surprising”, since the consumption of dog meat in limited to some parts of North Eastern states.
- The idea is alien to other parts of the country.
- The inclusion of dogs in the list would be “inconceivable” since consumption of dog meat “would be considered unthinkable”.
- However, the court observed that dog meat “appears to be an accepted norm and food amongst the Nagas even in modern times.”
- Based on the petitioner’s submissions, the court noted that the long-standing consumption of dog meat by various tribes in Nagaland has been recorded in multiple texts such as ‘The Angami Nagas.
- Court also underlined that the definition of ‘food’ in the FSSA as primarily meaning “any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption.
- ”The court noted that this definition is “wide and liberal enough” to include dog meat.
DISCUSSION ON CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:
- The counsel for respondents People for Animals and Humane Society International/India had argued that dogs have been smuggled and brought into markets in Nagaland “in a pathetic state.
- Dogs are tied and put in gunny bags with their mouth tied for long periods of time with no food or water to drink”, and that their trade entails cruelty to dogs.
- The court observed that while photographs submitted by the respondent show that dogs meant for slaughter appear to have been subjected to pain and suffering, this does not justify the ban.
- Instead, the court stated, there can be remedial measures to ensure the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Indian Penal Code.
COURT’S OBSERVATION ON THE POWER OF FSSAI TO ISSUE PROHIBITION ORDERS ON FOOD ITEMS:
- The court observed that the authority has been delegated power to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption by making regulations consistent with the FSS Act.
- The court also said the Chief Secretary was not the appropriate authority to issue the impugned ban order.
- The court further observed that the petitioners had been earning their livelihoods by transporting dogs and selling dog meat.
- It also observed that the duties and functions of the authority listed in the act does not mention the power issue prohibition orders.
- It stated that the authority appeared to have acted beyond its duties.
SYLLABUS: GS-2, MAINS, JUDICIARY
SOURCE: THE INDIAN EXPRESS