The Somnath non-veg ban has come under challenge in the Gujarat High Court, with owners of six eateries asking the court to set aside the state government’s prohibition on the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food in parts of the temple town.
The restaurants are located on a road included in one of six prohibited zones identified in a government notification issued in August. The notification permanently bars non-vegetarian food items in the specified areas, including a 500-metre periphery around the Somnath temple and locations near other religious places.
The petitioners’ advocate, Asarar Mansuri, argued that the restrictions violate the right to practise a trade or livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He submitted that authorities could not prevent the restaurant owners from conducting their businesses without adequate reason.
The petitioners told the court that officials had forced them to shut their eateries and continued to harass them. The case places the operation of small food businesses around a major pilgrimage destination against the state’s stated objective of protecting the religious sentiments of visitors.
Government pleader G H Virk told the court that the shops and restaurants were located on the main road leading to the Somnath temple. According to the government’s submission, pilgrims using the road would encounter non-vegetarian food items while travelling towards the temple.
The petitioners also alleged that, when the matter was first heard on October 7, the six restaurant owners were made to sign statements at a police chowky before the mamlatdar. The statements reportedly said that they would not sell non-vegetarian food in the future and would instead deal in vegetable items.
The High Court questioned the government about why the mamlatdar obtained the signatures on the same day that the court heard the petition. The exchange brings the conduct of local enforcement officials into the legal dispute, in addition to the validity of the wider notification.
The case concerns not only the permitted use of food establishments but also the way restrictions are enforced against local businesses. The petitioners’ claim is that the ban has interrupted their livelihoods, while the government has defended the restrictions on the basis of the route’s importance to pilgrims and the location of the eateries.
Further hearing in the matter is scheduled for Friday. The court’s proceedings will determine the next stage of the challenge to the August notification and the allegations concerning the signatures obtained from the restaurant owners.
