[ad_1]
The Kohima bench of the Gauhati High Court has stayed the Nagaland authorities’s resolution to ban the business sale of dog meat. Hearing a petition by licensed dog meat merchants, Justice S Hukato Swu Friday stated that the order “may be stayed until the next returnable date” for the reason that state authorities had not submitted a response but.
The Nagaland authorities’s resolution to ban dog meat got here into impact on July 4. In a notification, signed by Chief Secretary Temjen Toy, the federal government had banned the “commercial import and trading of dogs and dog markets” and “commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dine in restaurants” following a Cabinet assembly on July 3. The authorities cited the Food Safety & Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 201, FSSAI as the principle purpose for the ban.
July’s authorities’s order got here shortly after MP and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi issued a press release on the “unabated” killing and consuming of canines in Nagaland. She additionally requested individuals to e mail the Chief Secretary of Nagaland requesting him to cease “dog bazaars and dog restaurants” within the state.” On July 2, the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisation additionally issued a press release interesting to the federal government to implement a ban.
After the federal government’s announcement, individuals from some sections of Nagaland took to social media to protest the ban citing it as an imposition to the state’s conventional tradition.
Dog meat — thought of a delicacy amongst sure communities of Nagaland and another elements of the Northeast — has been historically consumed in elements of the state for many years. Certain communities in Nagaland additionally take into account dog meat to have medication properties.
The petitioners — who’re dog meat merchants licensed below the Kohima Municipal Council — stated that their enterprise and livelihood has been adversely affected by the ban and added to the pandemic scenario prevailing within the state. They additionally argued that the Chief Secretary, who handed the order, was not the statutory authority to take action. They identified that “procedural steps” as mandated below the Food Safety Standards weren’t adopted.
“The procedure requires that on observation if any food which is intended for sale appears to be not in conformity with standard rules would be subject to analysis scientifically and thereafter come to a finding that the particular food is either fit or unfit for consumption. All these procedural steps as mandated under the Act has been violated, therefore, there is a violation of the procedural law” stated the petitioners.
The subsequent listening to is scheduled after winter break.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink