Live
- Gurugram: Three including two women held in murder case
- Afghanistan: Six killed as vehicle falls into river in Badakhshan
- Complete failure in handling the situation: Congress on Sambhal violence
- Crucial UN plastics treaty talks begin in South Korea
- Delhi govt re-launched senior citizen pension scheme despite challenges: Bharadwaj
- PKL Season 11: We're determined to push for top spot in standings, says Puneri Paltan coach BC Ramesh
- Awareness Program on the Harmful Effects of Tobacco Products
- Bihar Assembly's winter session begins, three newly elected MLAs take oath
- Inflation to ease, economic growth to accelerate in coming months: Finance Ministry
- Protesters clash with police in J&K’s Katra town
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.
