Supreme Court refuses to stay meat ban near Somnath temple, seeks appeal decision in two months

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on November 6 refused to stay the Gujarat High Court’s interim order that kept a ban on non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of Somnath temple in force. It requested the High Court to decide the pending appeals preferably within two months. Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale heard the eateries’ challenge to the restrictions. The petitioners included Taj Restaurant owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan.

Conflicting High Court orders

The Gir Somnath District Magistrate issued the notification on August 10 under Sections 33(1)(w)(ii) and 33(6) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. It prohibited the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs in specified areas around the temple at Prabhas Patan. The eateries said they had lawfully operated vegetarian and non-vegetarian establishments for 35 to 40 years.

On October 30, a single judge struck down the notification for violating the right to practise a trade under Article 19(1)(g). A division bench stayed that ruling the same day. Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S Desai kept the notification in force, citing the expected arrival of devotees during Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year.

Eateries cite livelihood concerns

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioner, argued that the Gujarat Police Act did not authorise a permanent ban. “You can’t force people to eat or not to eat. Dietary habits can’t be regulated by law.”

When Justice Sundresh asked about the urgency for interim relief, Ahmadi said restaurant owners would lose festive business. “This is during Diwali, this is bread and butter and [you] are killing an enterprise. Mylords can stay, I have been operating for 40 years! If someone is eating non-vegetarian food within closed precincts, what is wrong?”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, defended the restriction, saying “you can serve [non-veg] outside.”

Court suggests balanced approach

Justice Sundresh orally suggested a balanced approach before the hearing ended. “Probably, [they] need to take a middle path, neither here nor there. We don’t want to say anything.”

After passing the order, he said the forthcoming nine-judge bench judgment on Article 25 in the Sabarimala reference could substantially affect the issue. He expressed hope that the judgment would arrive before the High Court decided the appeals.