Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 14th Nov. 2024 Click Here for more information
Contents
Source: The post is based on the article “Why the Gauhati HC quashed Nagaland govt’s notification banning dog meat’s sale and trade” published in Nature on 12th June 2023
What is the News?
The Gauhati High Court has quashed a 2020 order by the Nagaland government banning the trade and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine-in restaurants.
What was the issue?
In 2020, Nagaland Government issued an order banning dog markets, the commercial import and trading of dogs, as well as the commercial sale of dog meat in markets and in dine-in restaurants.
This had come after a 2014 circular by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) stating that the slaughter of any species other than the ones listed in the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 is not permissible.
However, a petition was filed against this order in the High Court stating that it is the “culture and custom of the Nagas” to eat dog meat and that they had been earning their livelihood for many years through the supply and sale of dog meat.
What were the court’s comments on this categorisation?
The High Court observed that the absence of dogs from the list issued by FSSAI was not surprising since the consumption of dog meat is limited to some parts of Northeastern states and is alien to other parts of the country.
However, the court observed that dog meat appears to be an accepted norm and food amongst the Nagas even in modern times.
What were the court’s observations on the power of the FSSAI to issue prohibition orders on food items?
The court observed that the FSSAI has been delegated power to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption by making regulations consistent with the FSS Act.
It also observed that the Duties and Functions of the authority listed in the act do not mention the power to issue prohibition orders. It stated that the authority appeared to have acted beyond its duties.
