The court noted that this was “not surprising since the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the northeastern states and the very idea of consuming dog meat is alien in other parts of the country”.
Digital
Desk: The Gauhati High Court on Friday overturned a Nagaland government
directive issued in 2020 that prohibited the sale of dog meat.
The ban forbade the "commercial
import, trading of dogs, and dog markets, as well as the commercial sale of dog
meat in markets and dine in restaurants." The ruling sparked outrage in
the state, particularly over concerns that the prohibition violates Article
371(A) of the Constitution, which grants Naga tribes the freedom to practise
and maintain their customary law and social practises, according to EastMojo.
In its order on Friday, the Gauhati
High Court noted that under the Food Safety and Standards Regulation, 2011, the
consumption of dogs is not mentioned. The court noted that this was “not surprising
since the meat of dogs is consumed only in some parts of the northeastern
states and the very idea of consuming dog meat is alien in other parts of the
country”.
The High Court said that
it could not find any grounds to not accept that dog meat is consumed by tribes
in Nagaland and this has been recorded in several books.
"There is also a
belief that dog meat has medicinal value," according to the edict.
"Even in modern times, the consumption of dog meat appears to be an
accepted norm and food among the Nagas, with the petitioners earning a living
by transporting dogs and selling dog meat."
The
High Court also ruled that the ban order should not have been issued by the
state's chief secretary.
According to The Indian
Express, the restriction was enacted after animal rights campaigner and Lok
Sabha MP Maneka Gandhi expressed worry over the incessant slaughter and eating
of dogs in Nagaland. She had requested locals to send an email to the state
chief secretary in order to put an end to "dog bazaars and dog
restaurants" in the state.
Three
dog meat traders challenged the order after it went into effect, claiming that
it violated natural justice principles and their fundamental rights under
Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression),
and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Leave A Comment