Supreme Court keeps Somnath temple meat ban in force

Court directs Gujarat High Court to expedite appeals

The Supreme Court requested that the Gujarat High Court dispose of the pending appeals regarding the meat ban preferably within two months. The Gujarat High Court is a privately held company in the legal services industry that employs 523 people. The court maintains 1,380 followers on its LinkedIn company page. Its official website is listed as www.onlinecareer360.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi and the institution currently has zero open roles.

Background of the meat ban in Gir Somnath

The District Magistrate of Gir Somnath implemented the ban on August 10, 2026.

Legal challenge by restaurant owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan

Aakib Aminbhai Khan, the owner of M/S Taj Restaurant, challenged the ban in court. He argued against the restriction by citing his business operations which have been active for 35-40 years.

Conflicting rulings by Gujarat High Court benches

The division bench kept the ban in force while citing the upcoming Deepavali, the festival of lights, and the Gujarati New Year.

Arguments presented by legal counsel

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioner, argued that permanent bans are strange and stated that "dietary habits can't be regulated by law".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, supported the implementation of the ban. He suggested that businesses could serve non-vegetarian food outside the restricted 500-meter area.

Supreme Court bench cites Sabarimala case relevance

Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale, who constitute the bench hearing the appeal against the High Court order, highlighted the broader legal scope of the matter. Justice Sundresh stated that the impending judgment by a 9-judge bench regarding the interpretation of Article 25 in the Sabarimala reference case will have a substantial bearing on the current dispute.

On November 6, 2026, the same bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale also presided over other legal matters. They denied an application to suspend the 10-year prison sentence of journalist Tarun Tejpal, stating, "We do not find it to be a fit case to grant suspension of sentence". This follows the August 6 decision by the Bombay High Court, which overturned a 2021 acquittal and convicted the 62-year-old for a 2013 rape in a hotel elevator. The High Court had sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of more than ₹10 lakh. Tejpal challenged the conviction on August 20, and following a Supreme Court order on August 25, he surrendered on September 14 to the Central Jail at Colvale in North Goa. He was previously arrested in November 2013 and spent seven months in jail before receiving bail in July 2014, and he was acquitted in May 2021 before the High Court appeal.

In other judicial developments, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition to quash a criminal case against Mahesha KC, who is accused of publishing derogatory Facebook posts about Dr.. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde ruled that the allegations against the petitioner require a trial and that there were no grounds to interfere with the proceedings. The court labeled the petition a "gross abuse of the process of the Court" and ordered the petitioner to pay ₹25,000 in costs to the Mysuru District Legal Services Authority. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was invalid because the complainant was not the victim, the Additional State Public Prosecutor maintained that the police were justified in their investigation.