Madras High Court permits dog show today

Allowing a miscellaneous petition from the Madras Canine Club, Justice V.. Ramasubramanian, however, said, “The animals, which are brought for the exhibition, shall not be allowed to perform any acrobatics and shall not be subjected to any cruelty for the purpose of satisfying the audience. Post the writ petition for final disposal on September 23, 2014”.

The Madras Canine Club filed the petition to forbear the authorities from treating dogs shown in dog shows organized by the petitioner as “performing animals”, thereby, causing any disturbance, obstruction or disruption to the shows.

Opposing the dog show, the counsel for the Animal Welfare Board (AWB) contended that the dogs exhibited in such shows were actually subjected to cruelty with a view to make them appear differently. He brought to the notice of the court, a book where there was mention about amputation of tails or tail-docking done on dogs. Cosmetic surgeries were performed on dogs in their infancy, he added.

The judge said that the Supreme Court had, in a judgment pointed out that when the ministry of environment and forests issued a notification in 1991 under section 21 of the Act, the training and exhibition of dogs was also banned. But when the ban was challenged by the Indian circus organization before the Delhi high court, a corrigendum was issued by the ministry, excluding dogs from the notification.

Subsequently, a committee was constituted on a direction from the Delhi high court. Based on its report, a notification was issued excluding dogs from its purview. The notification was upheld by the Supreme Court.

“In such circumstances, prima facie, it appears that the conduct of a mere dog show, where the animals will not be made to perform any act displaying any of their skills, is not harmful. Even if the contention of the AWB that the animals have been subjected to

cruelty, is accepted, the manner in which such cruelty has to be stopped and the sufferings of the animals have to be alleviated, will have to be worked out in detail.

As on date, the statute does not contain a provision as to how to alleviate the sufferings of such animals,” the judge added.

The judge said the event had already been notified and it appears that several breeds of dogs and some judges for the show were also arriving from abroad. He said, “Therefore, I am of the view that disallowing the show at the last minute will not be in pubic interest or in the interest of the animals themselves. The larger question as to whether such shows could be permitted in future or the steps to be taken for preventing tail-docking or ear-cropping could be decided while taking up the writ petition for final disposal.”