The Centre has informed the Madras High Court of having destroyed crucial files related to a 2016 ban on import of dogs for commercial purposes despite three writ petitions having been filed in 2016 and 2017 challenging it and a notice having been ordered to the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry on July 12, 2016.
While setting aside the ban notification, Justice Anita Sumanth wrote: “Thus, this court is denied the benefit of the supporting material on the basis of which the impugned (under challenge) ban has been imposed. I am not inclined to assume the existence of such material, which is fundamental and critical to justify the impugned notification.”
It was when the writ petitions were listed for final hearing before the judge early this year, she sought the files containing comments from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and others before the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) imposed the ban on April 25, 2016. The judge wanted to peruse the files to ascertain if there was any justification behind the ban. However, Deputy Commissioner (Trade) responded on February 22 this year that the files had been weeded out and were untraceable.
The official also said the list of destroyed files contained the number of the file that had been called for by the court.
Surprised at such a response, the judge wrote: “It was incumbent upon the respondents to have secured and retained all files in connection with the notification, particularly when the affidavit discloses the grounds of challenge. Thus, I am persuaded to conclude that the impugned notification had been issued without necessary scientific study and due diligence as called for.”
The judgment was delivered on a batch of writ petitions filed by Kennel Club of India, Madras Canine Club and individual dog lover C.R. Bhaalakkrishna Bhat who contended that the decision to ban was taken by the DGFT without the concurrence of the Union Ministry, under which the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying functions.
However, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan told the court the then Union Minister for Commerce was holding additional charge of the Ministry of Agriculture and, therefore, she had affixed her initials on the file. Though there were no pleadings to that effect, the judge accepted the statement of the ASG without question.
“If the petitioners believe that the statement requires probing, it is left open to them to utilise the provisions of the Right to Information Act and obtain necessary clarification/information,” the judge said.
