Somnath non-veg ban: Gujarat tells HC business rights cannot override pilgrimage site's sanctity

The Gujarat government has told the High Court that the right to carry on business cannot be stretched into a right to disregard the religious, historical and cultural character of a pilgrimage destination, as it defended a ban on non-vegetarian food around the Somnath Temple.

The court on Wednesday was hearing a petition filed by six restaurant owners challenging a state notification that prohibits the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food within a 500-metre radius of the temple, a shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva in Gir Somnath district.

Appearing before a bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakor, government pleader G.H. Virk submitted that Somnath cannot be viewed merely as a commercial town, ignoring its extraordinary religious, historical and spiritual significance to millions of Hindus across the country.

"The right to carry on business cannot be stretched into a right to disregard the religious, historical and cultural character of a pilgrimage destination," the government said in its submission.

Mr Virk argued that no one can claim an absolute fundamental right to sell non-vegetarian food at the temple doorstep or along the sacred routes traversed by devotees.

The notification, issued in August this year, identified half a dozen prohibited zones within the 500-metre radius, including routes passing through pilgrimage sites, where the ban on the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food applies permanently. The restaurants that have approached the court are located in one of these zones.

In its defence, the government said more than 1.16 crore devotees visited the temple in the past nine months alone. It also pointed out that pilgrimage towns such as Rishikesh, Haridwar, Amritsar and Mathura-Vrindavan have similar restrictions on the sale of non-vegetarian food items.

The government further maintained that eateries remain free to serve vegetarian food at their existing premises, or to carry on non-vegetarian trade outside the specifically notified areas, subject to applicable laws.

The petitioners contend that they have been operating lawfully for several decades, hold valid licences, and that their establishments are located well beyond the Somnath Temple periphery. They argued that the district magistrate exceeded the powers available to him by imposing a permanent prohibition on an otherwise lawful trade, and said the authorities forced them to shut their eateries.

Their plea states that the notification violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which grants all citizens the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, and that authorities cannot restrain a person from conducting a trade or livelihood without assigning a reason.

The Constitution, however, also permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public, under Article 19(6) — a provision that is likely to be central to the court's examination of the dispute.

The case sets up a broader question about how far municipal and religious sensitivities can shape commercial regulation in towns built around major places of worship. The High Court is yet to rule on the petition, and the ban remains in force in the notified zones meanwhile.