Restaurants around the Somnath temple in Prabhas Patan will go through Diwali and the Gujarati New Year without serving meat, fish or eggs. On Friday, November 6, a Supreme Court bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale declined to disturb the Gujarat High Court order that keeps the ban in force, and asked the High Court to try to decide the pending appeals within about two months, LiveLaw and Bar and Bench reported. The bench did not rule on whether the ban is lawful.
A ban lifted and restored on the same afternoon
The restriction comes from an August 10 notification by the Gir Somnath District Magistrate. It bars preparing, selling and storing non-vegetarian food at eateries, hotels, shops and roadside stalls on specified routes in Prabhas Patan, Veraval taluka, and everywhere within 500 metres of the temple. The order relies on Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, a provision written to let police regulate public places and gatherings.
Six restaurant owners challenged it. On October 30 a single judge of the High Court quashed the notification, holding that it violated the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The state appealed within hours, and a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S Desai stayed the single judge’s ruling the same day, citing the crowds expected at the temple over Deepavali and the New Year. That stay put the ban back in force, and it is the order the restaurant owners asked the Supreme Court to set aside.
Arguments the Supreme Court heard, and parked
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the lead petitioner Aakib Aminbhai Khan of Taj Restaurant, argued that the Police Act gives no power to impose a permanent ban, that the eateries have operated lawfully for close to 40 years, and that the festive season is when they earn the most. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the ban for the state and said non-vegetarian food can still be sold outside the restricted zone, according to DeshGujarat and LiveLaw.
The bench spoke of maintaining a balance and suggested authorities might look for a middle path, but declined to say more at the interim stage. Justice Sundresh also pointed to the pending nine-judge Constitution Bench ruling on Article 25, the religious freedom guarantee being examined in the Sabarimala reference, and said that verdict would have a substantial bearing on disputes like this one.
Two questions the High Court now has to answer
When the division bench takes up the state’s appeal, the case turns on two points. The first is statutory: whether Section 33 of the Police Act, meant for regulating places of public resort, can support an open-ended ban on a category of food in a whole neighbourhood. The single judge said it cannot. The second is constitutional: how far a temple’s religious character can limit a trade that is otherwise legal, which is where the Sabarimala ruling may matter.
The answer will reach beyond Somnath. Gujarat has other temple towns, and a High Court ruling that upholds a district magistrate’s power to declare such zones would give collectors elsewhere a template. A ruling the other way would push the state towards a specific law if it wants such restrictions.
Practical position for visitors and traders
For now, the August 10 notification applies in full. Pilgrims and tourists visiting Somnath over the holidays will not find non-vegetarian food on the notified routes or within 500 metres of the temple, while restaurants beyond that zone in Veraval are unaffected. The affected eateries lose the peak season regardless of how the appeal ends. The High Court has listed the matter for November 25.
Sources: LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, DeshGujarat
This report was written with AI assistance from the publicly reported sources linked here; each fact was cross-checked against at least two of them.