Supreme Court: Refuses To Stay Gujarat HC Order on Somnath Non-Veg Ban

• The Supreme Court refused to stay the Gujarat High Court's interim order maintaining a non-vegetarian food ban near the Somnath temple.
• This decision keeps the District Magistrate's August 10 notification in force, prohibiting non-veg food and eggs within 500 meters of the shrine.
• The ban impacts eateries in Prabhas Patan, preventing them from serving non-vegetarian items during the festive season.
• The Supreme Court requested the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending appeals on the ban within two months.
• The legal challenge involves arguments about fundamental rights to trade and the scope of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.

Dietary habits cannot be regulated by law.

The Supreme Court recently declined to intervene in a Gujarat High Court order, which maintains a prohibition on the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs within a 500-meter radius of the Somnath temple. This decision, rendered on Friday, effectively denied interim relief to various eateries situated in Prabhas Patan, ensuring that the ban remains in effect during the ongoing festive season. The apex court, however, urged the Gujarat High Court to expedite its decision on the pending appeals, preferably within a two-month timeframe.

This ruling means that restaurants and food vendors operating near the revered Somnath shrine are currently unable to offer non-vegetarian options to their patrons. The restriction stems from a notification issued by the District Magistrate of Gir Somnath, which specifically targets certain routes and areas surrounding the temple. The Supreme Court's stance leaves the interim order of the High Court undisturbed, compelling local businesses to adhere to the ban while the broader legal challenge proceeds.

The contested ban originated from a notification issued on August 10 by the District Magistrate of Gir Somnath, invoking powers under Section 33(1)(w)(ii) and Section 33(6) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. This directive explicitly prohibited non-vegetarian food and eggs within a 500-meter zone of the temple in Prabhas Patan, Taluka Veraval. Local eateries, some of which claimed to have operated both vegetarian and non-vegetarian establishments for 35 to 40 years, subsequently challenged this notification before the Gujarat High Court.

On October 30, a Single Judge of the High Court initially quashed the August 10 notification, deeming it ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, thereby infringing upon the fundamental right to carry on trade. However, on the very same day, a Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai, stayed the Single Judge's order. This interim directive mandated that the August 10 ban would remain in force, citing the anticipated influx of devotees during Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year as justification.

The affected eateries, including M/s Taj Restaurant owned by Aakib Aminbhai Khan, then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioner, argued that the Gujarat Police Act does not grant authority to impose a permanent ban, describing such prohibitions as "very strange." He referenced the Supreme Court's Bijoe Emmanuel judgment to underscore the constitutional principle of tolerance, asserting that "dietary habits cannot be regulated by law" and questioning the state's approach given that "80% of this country is non-vegetarian." Ahmadi highlighted the severe impact on businesses during the festive season, stating, "This is during Diwali, this is bread and butter and [you] are killing an enterprise." Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, defended the ban, suggesting that non-vegetarian food could be served "outside" the restricted zone.

Following these arguments, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale, ultimately declined to issue a stay on the High Court's interim order. While upholding the temporary ban, the apex court underscored the necessity for the Gujarat High Court to make a concerted effort to resolve the underlying appeal within the stipulated two-month period. This directive aims to bring a definitive resolution to the dispute impacting local businesses and religious practices.

During the proceedings, Justice Sundresh orally remarked on the need for a balanced approach to the issue. He suggested that a "middle path" would likely be required, indicating a potential judicial inclination towards a compromise that respects both the sanctity of the religious site and the economic rights of traders. This ongoing legal battle highlights the complex interplay between religious sentiments, state regulatory powers, and the fundamental rights of citizens to conduct their livelihoods, particularly in culturally sensitive areas during significant festive periods.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.