The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s interim order restoring the ban on the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food near the Somnath Temple in Gujarat.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a plea filed by restaurant owners challenging the Gujarat High Court’s order that had stayed a Single Judge’s decision to set aside the restrictions.
The petitioners argued that the ban was adversely affecting their businesses and livelihoods. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the restaurant owners, contended that dietary choices were a matter of personal choice and that the State could not impose restrictions dictating what people could eat. He also questioned the urgency with which the Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench had stayed the Single Judge’s order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, opposed the plea and submitted that the Gujarat High Court was scheduled to hear the matter on November 25. The Supreme Court declined to stay the interim order and asked the Gujarat High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Bench did not examine the validity of the meat ban on merits.
The dispute concerns a notification issued by the District Magistrate of Gir Somnath on August 10, 2026, prohibiting the preparation, sale and storage of meat, fish and other non-vegetarian food at shops, restaurants, hotels and roadside stalls along specified roads and within a 500-metre radius of the Somnath Temple.
Restaurant owners had challenged the notification before the Gujarat High Court. On October 30, Justice Nisha M. Thakore allowed their petition and set aside the restrictions. However, the State immediately approached a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai, which stayed the Single Judge’s order and restored the ban.
The Supreme Court proceedings arise from the challenge to that interim order. The Gujarat High Court is yet to decide the State’s appeal on merits.