Somnath Restaurants Can Serve Non-Veg Again As Gujarat HC Quashes District Magistrate’s Ban As Beyond Police Act Powers

The petitioners operated licensed vegetarian and non-vegetarian restaurants in Prabhas Patan, Veraval, for approximately 35–40 years.

The District Magistrate issued a preliminary notification on 10 July 2026 and a final notification on 10 August 2026 under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, prohibiting the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs on specified routes and within the notified area around Somnath Temple.

The petitioners challenged the final notification, contending that their establishments were beyond 500 metres from the temple, that the restriction unlawfully burdened their trade, and that the District Magistrate lacked authority to impose it.

Some petitioners had also challenged a 2018 municipal resolution in separate pending proceedings.

The present petition was heard finally at the admission stage after the parties consented to final hearing.

Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practise a profession or carry on an occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6).

The Court applied the principles in Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, requiring restrictions to avoid arbitrary or excessive interference and to balance individual freedom with social control.

It applied the four-stage proportionality test—legitimate aim, suitability, necessity (including the availability of less restrictive alternatives) and balancing—drawn from Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P. and reaffirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

The Court also considered Sections 33 and 36 of the Gujarat Police Act and the statutory definitions of places of public amusement and entertainment, concluding that the Act’s regulatory powers did not authorise a permanent prohibition on a lawful restaurant trade.

It referred to Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar and State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat in considering religious sentiment, Article 25 and the reasonableness of restrictions.

The Court further noted the Food Safety and Standards Regulations concerning the location of meat shops near places of worship.

The Court accepted that the petitioners were engaged in lawful, licensed trade on routes connecting religious sites, but held that the notification imposed a permanent restriction on serving non-vegetarian food.

The stated basis—religious sentiment, particularly concerns about the open preparation or display of such food—did not establish that a complete prohibition was necessary or that less restrictive measures would be inadequate.

The Court found the restriction disproportionate and held that religious practice had to be harmonised with other fundamental rights.

Independently, it concluded that Section 33 empowered regulation in specified fields, not the imposition of a permanent dietary restriction on eating houses; the District Magistrate therefore acted beyond the statute.

It allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the notification dated 10 August 2026.

The petitioners were directed to prevent public visibility of carcasses and food displays, maintain hygiene and proper waste disposal, avoid operating in open spaces, and transport carcasses in insulated refrigerated vans.

The State’s request to stay the judgment was refused.