Live
- ETS Expands Operations in India, Appoints Mona Agarwal as General Manager of Global Capability Centers
- PM Vidya Lakshmi Scheme to Help Underprivileged Students Achieve Their Dreams of Higher Education: MP Brijesh Chowta
- Udupi Cooperative Bank Accused of Loan Fraud
- No more smoking in government office premises
- Google Cloud unveils new initiatives to empower AI startups in India
- Collector Warns of Strict Action if Irregularities Occur in Weighing Process
- WPL 2025: Mumbai Indians release Issy Wong, Humairaa Kaazi, Fatima Jaffer and Priyanka Bala
- People will not forgive Congress for repeatedly insulting Constitution: Kiren Rijiju
- Aid group resumes activities at famine-hit camp in Sudan
- Kishan Reddy Vows to End BRS and Congress Influence in Telangana, Criticizes CM's Governance
Delhi HC issues notice to Centre on plea challenging ban on 23 'ferocious' dog breeds
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the Central government on a petition challenging the recent notification banning 23 "ferocious" dog breeds in the country.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the Central government on a petition challenging the recent notification banning 23 "ferocious" dog breeds in the country.
Declining to stay the notification, Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a notice to the Centre seeking its response to the petition.
The petition, filed by a dog trainer and a doctor, argues that the ban lacks any empirical basis or scientific justification.
It contends that no comprehensive study was conducted in India to establish the alleged ferocity of these breeds, and the necessity for their prohibition.
The petitioners asserted that the sudden and blanket ban could lead to unnecessary suffering or euthanasia for dogs with no history of aggression. They also challenged the ban on specific breeds like Cane Corso, Rottweiler, and Terrier, highlighting its "arbitrary nature and lack of rational basis".
The petitioner dog trainer also invoked constitutional rights by arguing that the ban directly impacts his livelihood.
He cited Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to practice any profession, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.
The petitioner contended that the ban constitutes a severe encroachment upon his fundamental rights, stressing the "arbitrary and unreasonable" nature of the Centre's action.
He also said that the notification infringes upon his right to carry out his profession freely, and without undue interference.
