The restriction on non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of Gujarat’s Somnath temple will remain in place for now. The Supreme Court on Friday declined to suspend the ban, leaving restaurant owners with no immediate relief.
However, the court has asked the Gujarat High Court to try to decide the pending appeals, preferably within two months. The matter was heard by a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh indicated that a middle ground might be needed instead of taking an extreme position. He also pointed out that an upcoming Supreme Court judgment on religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution could have an important impact on the dispute.
The case was brought by eateries operating in the restricted area, including M/S Taj Restaurant. Its owner, Aakib Aminbhai Khan, is the petitioner in the matter.
The restaurant owners told the court that they had been running their establishments legally for around 35 to 40 years. They argued that the restrictions affected their right to operate their businesses and earn a living.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the restaurant, argued that the Gujarat Police Act did not give the authorities the power to impose such a long-term prohibition.
He also questioned the idea of regulating what people choose to eat. During the hearing, he argued that people should not be forced to follow particular food habits.
Ahmadi told the court that the restriction had come at a particularly difficult time for restaurant owners because of the Diwali season. He said their businesses were being affected and pointed out that the restaurant had been operating for four decades.
He also questioned what was wrong with serving non-vegetarian food inside the restaurant premises.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Gujarat government and supported the restriction.
Responding to the restaurant owners’ arguments, he said that they could continue serving non-vegetarian food outside the restricted area.
The Supreme Court did not accept the restaurant owners’ request for immediate relief. Justice Sundresh also questioned why the matter required urgent interim intervention.
The controversy began on August 10, when the Gir Somnath District Magistrate issued an order restricting the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of the Somnath temple.
The order covered the temple surroundings and specified areas along a route in Prabhas Patan, located in Veraval taluka. Restaurant owners challenged the decision, arguing that it interfered with their ability to carry on their businesses.
Gujarat High Court First Struck Down The Ban, Then Restored It
On October 30, a single judge of the Gujarat High Court cancelled the August 10 notification.
The judge held that the restriction went beyond the powers available under the law and violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This provision protects a person’s right to practise a profession or run a business.
But the relief did not last.
On the same day, a division bench of the High Court put the single judge’s decision on hold. The bench was headed by Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and included Justice Nirzar S Desai.
The division bench said that a large number of devotees were expected to visit Somnath during Diwali and the Gujarati New Year. Keeping these occasions in mind, it directed that the August 10 restriction should continue until the matter was heard further.
This meant that the ban came back into effect, prompting the restaurant owners to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Says A Middle Ground May Be Needed
While refusing to suspend the High Court division bench’s order, Justice Sundresh indicated that the issue might require a balanced solution.
He observed that the court may have to consider an approach that takes both sides into account, without immediately favouring either position.
The Supreme Court has now left the matter to the Gujarat High Court and asked it to make an effort to decide the pending appeals within two months.
Why The Court Mentioned Article 25
Another important point raised during the hearing was an upcoming decision by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Article 25.
Article 25 deals with the freedom of conscience and the right to practise, profess and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limits.
Justice Sundresh said the forthcoming judgment could have a significant bearing on the Somnath dispute. He referred to the larger constitutional questions being considered in the Sabarimala reference case.
The observation suggests that the legal questions involved in the Somnath matter may also need to be considered in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of religious freedom.
What Happens Next?
For now, the August 10 notification remains effective. This means the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs continue to be prohibited within the specified 500-metre area around the Somnath temple.
The restaurant owners will have to wait for the Gujarat High Court to hear the pending appeals. The Supreme Court has asked the High Court to preferably complete the process within two months.
The final decision on the legality of the restriction is still pending. Until then, restaurants in the affected area will have to follow the ban.
Also Read: Burglary Steals More Than Gadgets: Vadodara Blind Chess Player’s Championship Dreams Hit
