The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an interim order of the Gujarat High Court that upheld a ban on the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food items and eggs within a 500-meter radius of the Somnath temple in Gujarat. The bench, comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale, opted against granting an interim stay on the restriction while directing the High Court to expedite the pending proceedings and conclude the matter within a period of two months.
What was the legal genesis of the Somnath temple area meat ban dispute?
The administrative restriction originated from a formal notification issued on August 10 by the District Magistrate of Gir Somnath. Exercising powers under Section 33(1)(w)(ii) and Section 33(6) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, the authority prohibited non-vegetarian food activities along specified routes and areas in Prabhas Patan, Taluka, Veraval. Affected business owners, including the proprietor of M/S Taj Restaurant, challenged this administrative directive by filing writ proceedings, pointing out that their commercial establishments had lawfully operated in the locality for nearly four decades.
Initially, a single judge of the High Court delivered a ruling on October 30 quashing the August 10 notification. The single judge held that the executive action was ultra vires of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, reasoning that it constituted an unconstitutional infringement upon the fundamental right to carry on trade and occupation. However, the legal landscape shifted on the very same day when an intra-court appeal was entertained by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S Desai. The division bench stayed the single judge verdict, noting that the continuation of the notification was warranted given the high influx of devotees during the Deepavali and Gujarati New Year festive periods.
Judicial Forum | Date of Order | Action Taken | Core Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
District Magistrate | August 10 | Issued Notification | Banned non-veg food within 500m of Somnath temple under Gujarat Police Act |
Single Judge | October 30 | Quashed Notification | Held notification ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) as a violation of trade rights |
Division Bench | October 30 | Stayed Single Judge Order | Restored ban temporarily citing festive season crowd management |
Supreme Court | November 6 | Refused Interim Stay | Requested High Court to decide pending appeals within two months |
Aggrieved by the division bench decision, the affected eateries approached the apex court through Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi. Counsel contended that the Gujarat Police Act does not empower authorities to impose a permanent commercial ban of this nature. It was argued that dietary choices cannot be regulated through penal executive fiat and that freezing restaurant operations during peak festival seasons severely undermines livelihood protections. Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, defended the validity of the restriction, submitting that alternative arrangements permitted food businesses to operate outside the designated exclusionary zone.
During the proceedings, Justice Sundresh observed that a balanced, middle-path approach would likely be appropriate for resolving the underlying tensions. Furthermore, the bench orally noted that the impending pronouncement by a nine-judge constitution bench regarding the interpretation of Article 25 would ultimately carry substantial legal bearing on the controversy, potentially rendering subsequent rounds of similar litigation unnecessary. Without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the dispute, the Supreme Court closed the interim hearing by reiterating the directive for the High Court to expedite the final adjudication.