PIL seeks to quash pet licensing rule

PIL seeks to quash pet licensing rule

A PIL has been filed in the high court seeking directions to quash the BBMP's pet notification.

A public interest litigation has been filed in the high court challenging the BBMP's impugned notification comprising by-laws pertaining to pet licensing.

Indira Gopalkrishna, a resident of Sadananda Nagar, has moved the court seeking directions to quash the notification.

Recently, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) issued the notification stating that only one approved dog can be reared in a flat, while an independent house cannot have more than three dogs.

The new rule also mandates the dog owners to get a licence consisting of a radio collar with an embedded chip. A pet parent will have to pay Rs 1,000 fine if they did not get the licence.

The petitioner has contended that the pet owners with more than one dog in case of an apartment and more than three dogs in an independent dwelling will be forced to abandon their dogs on the street to conform with the new rule.

The notification provides a list of breeds that are approved for residential flats. The list is arbitrary and is copied from some other country. Certain breeds mentioned in the list are not available in India, which paints a picture of the BBMP trying to promote certain breeds of dogs to benefit certain illegal breeders, the petition said.

The list does not mention the most common breeds reared in households like Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds and native Indian dogs, it said.

The rule will promote auction of dogs and their exploitation by the illegal breeders, the petitioner contended.

The petitioner submitted that the rule is arbitrary, lacks clarity and is in contravention of Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Furthermore, it has caused great hardship and inconvenience to pet owners as there is no clarity on how it would be exercised, it said.

A division bench, headed by Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, hearing the petition adjourned the matter to June 20.