Gujarat High Court restores meat ban near Somnath Temple

Urgent appeal follows single-judge verdict

The bench stayed an order issued earlier that day by Justice Nisha M Thakore that had lifted the ban.

Justice Thakore had quashed the District Magistrate of Gir-Somnath's August 10 notification earlier in the day. The division bench heard the appeal approximately two-and-a-half hours after Justice Thakore pronounced her verdict at 3 PM.

The state government filed its appeal before the verdict of the single-judge bench was published on the court's website.

District Magistrate notification details

A final notification banning the sale of non-vegetarian items was released by the District Magistrate of Gir-Somnath on August 10, 2026. This order applies to seven public routes and a 500-meter radius around the Somnath Temple.

Authorities released a preliminary notification on July 10, 2026, to invite public objections within a 30-day period.

State government arguments for the ban

In these proceedings, the restaurant owners were represented by Advocate Asarar L Mansuri.

The State government argued that the ban is necessary to protect religious sentiments during the upcoming Deepavali and Gujarati New Year festivals. Advocate General Kamal Trivedi stated that these festivals draw large crowds of devotees to the temple. He warned that the presence of non-vegetarian food could hurt these sentiments or cause danger.

The division bench observed that the presence of such food in the area could cause annoyance or danger to the large number of expected visitors. On October 21, the State government justified the restriction by drawing parallels between the temple and sites like Amritsar, Haridwar, Rishikesh, Mathura, and Vrindavan.

To support the legality of the ban, the State relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The division bench noted that the counsel for the respondents failed to provide any Supreme Court or High Court judgment that contradicted the position held by the State.

Single judge reasoning and restaurant owners' position

Justice Thakore ruled on October 30, 2026, that the ban infringed upon the right of restaurant owners to conduct business. She held that authorities possess the power to regulate, but not to completely prohibit, the preparation and sale of non-vegetarian food.

The court found the ban disproportionate and stated that the non-display of meat on public streets does not constitute an essential religious practice under Article 25. Justice Thakore observed that Hinduism is not monolithic and noted the Bhagavad Gita classifies food into three qualities without strictly outlawing non-vegetarian diets. Additionally, she remarked that eating non-vegetarian food is a matter of personal choice rather than an integral component of religious practice.

The single judge ruled that the law does not grant powers to dictate individual food preferences or legislate dietary restrictions. She determined the District Magistrate acted outside the law because relevant provisions allow for regulating health, safety, and traffic rather than an absolute ban on trade.

The court observed that the Magistrate made a significant mistake by using the religious feelings of a specific group as a basis for public order to regulate hotels. The ruling noted that under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Municipal Commissioners are only empowered to regulate licenses for hygiene, fire safety, structural permission, and public sanitation.

The court also observed that the term any eating house was removed from the definition of place of public entertainment by Gujarat Act no. 8 of 2018, which was notified on April 5, 2018. The licenses granted to restaurants under the Food Safety and Standards Act contained no stipulations that barred the sale of non-vegetarian food.

Restaurant lawyers argued the ban exceeded authorities' powers under the Gujarat Police Act, which pertains to public places rather than private restaurants. The owners claimed they had been in business for decades, during which time there was no proof that selling meat led to any unrest.

The court suggested authorities could have balanced business rights and religious preferences by implementing least restrictive measures instead of a permanent ban. Justice Thakore ordered restaurant owners to keep premises' doors closed and covered with dark glass to prevent the public from seeing animal carcasses. The court directed the petitioners to uphold their duty under Article 51A of the Constitution to protect India's sovereignty and promote harmony.

Next steps in the legal proceedings

The division bench stayed the single-judge bench's order, keeping the meat ban in force until the next hearing. While one report stated the next hearing is scheduled for November 25, 2026, another report indicated the date as December 26.

The division bench ordered the August 10 notification to remain in effect and directed that the case be heard alongside a 2018 petition. The court also ordered the appellants to serve notice on respondent No. 7 via speed post and direct service within five working days.