The Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court just recently quashed a 2020 federal government alert, which had actually prohibited the trade and sale of dog meat in Nagaland.
In its judgement, the single-judge bench of Justice Marli Vankung made a variety of observations on what is thought about appropriate for human intake and the degree to which the state can control this.
The order had actually been provided on July 4, 2020, by the workplace of the Chief Secretary of Nagaland and it had actually prohibited dog markets, the industrial import and trading of dogs, in addition to the industrial sale of dog meat in markets and in dine-in dining establishments.
This had actually followed a 2014 circular by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) mentioning that the massacre of any types besides the ones noted in Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 is not acceptable. The Nagaland federal government order had actually specified that the restriction was required to “regulate the safety of food articles safe for human consumption”.
What are these animals which are noted in the policies?
Regulation 2.5.1(a) of the 2011 Regulations specifies “animal” as any animal coming from the types of ovines [sheep family], caprines [goat family], suillines [pig family], bovine [cattle], and consisting of poultry and fish.
What were the court’s talk about this categorisation?
In its judgement, the court observed that the lack of dogs from the noted animals is “not surprising”, considering that the intake of dog meat in restricted to some parts of North Eastern states and considering that the concept is alien to other parts of the nation, the addition of dogs in the list would be “inconceivable” considering that intake 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 kept in mind that the enduring intake of dog meat by different people in Nagaland has actually been tape-recorded in several texts such as ‘The Angami Nagas, With Some Notes on Neighbouring Tribes’ authored by J.H. Hutton in 1921; ‘The AO Nagas’ and ‘The Rengma Nagas’ authored by J.P. Mills in 1926 and 1937, respectively.
The court likewise highlighted that the meaning of ‘food’ in the FSSA as mostly suggesting “any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption.” The court kept in mind that this meaning is “wide and liberal enough” to consist of dog meat.
Was there conversation on cruelty to animals too?
The counsel for participants People for Animals and Humane Society International/India had actually argued that dogs have actually been smuggled and brought into markets in Nagaland “in a pathetic state where dogs are tied and put in gunny bags with their mouth tied for long periods of time with no food or water to drink”, which their trade requires cruelty to dogs.
The court observed that while pictures sent by the participant reveal that dogs indicated for massacre appear to have actually gone through discomfort and suffering, this does not validate the restriction. Instead, the court specified, there can be restorative steps to make sure the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Indian Penal Code.
What were the court’s observations on the power of the FSSAI to release restriction orders on food products?
The court observed that the authority has actually been entrusted power to make sure the schedule of safe and wholesome food for human intake by making policies constant with the FSS Act. It likewise observed that the Duties and Functions of the authority noted in the act does not discuss the power concern restriction orders. It specified that the authority appeared to have actually acted beyond its tasks.
