A Gujarat High Court division bench on Friday restored a ban on the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food around Somnath Temple. [State of Gujarat & Ors. v Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan & Ors.].

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S Desai stayed an order passed by a single-judge hours after the latter passed the judgment lifting the ban.

This was after the State moved in appeal against the single-judge's order immediately after it was pronounced.

The single-judge's verdict had not yet been published on the Court website when the State's appeal came up for hearing. The division bench took up the State's appeal at around 5.30 pm, barely two-and-a-half hours after single-judge Justice Nisha M Thakore pronounced her verdict at around 3 pm.

The District Magistrate had issued a preliminary notification on July 10, inviting objections to a proposed prohibition on the preparation, sale and storage of meat, fish and non-vegetarian dishes at shops, restaurants, hotels and roadside stalls in specified areas.

The final notification issued on August 10 imposed the prohibition on seven specified stretches and areas, including all areas within 500 metres of Somnath Temple.

The restaurant owners, who operate establishments in the region, challenged the notification before the Gujarat High Court. The single-judge allowed their petition on October 30, prompting the Gujarat government to file the appeal later that day.

The Division Bench took note of the State's submission and consequently directed that the District Magistrate's August 10 notification would remain in force. It stayed the single-judge's judgment until further orders.

"Considering the aforesaid submission as well as considering the fact that during the forthcoming Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year large the forthcoming Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year large number of devotees are likely to visit Somnath Temple, the Final Notification dated 10.08.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Gir Somnath... shall remain in force till the returnable date and the order passed by the learned Single Judge... of 2026 today (30.10.2026) shall remain stayed until further orders," ordered the Court.

Before the single-judge, the restaurant owners had argued that the District Magistrate had no power to impose a blanket ban on the sale and preparation of non-vegetarian food in the specified areas.

The Justice Thakore agreed, holding that the ban interfered with the restaurant owners' right to run their businesses. She further observed that the authorities could regulate the preparation, storage and sale of non-vegetarian food, but could not impose a complete ban on these activities.

The single-judge also rejected the argument that the ban was necessary to protect the religious sentiments of devotees.

"Hinduism is not monolithic but the choice or ritual of consuming food varies region wise. Thus, consumption of non-vegetarian food cannot be recognised as an essential feature of religious practice but rather a personal choice," observed Justice Thakore.

The single-judge explained that the power to regulate an activity did not mean that authorities could completely stop it.

"The Courts have time and again distinguished the power to regulate does not mean to completely extinguished. On the contrary, power to regulate implies the continued existence of the activity being regulated," said the judgment.

Before the Division Bench, the State argued that allowing meat, fish and non-vegetarian dishes in the specified areas during the festival period could hurt devotees' religious sentiments and cause inconvenience and danger to the temple and its surroundings.

The Division Bench order recorded that Advocate General Kamal Trivedi told the Court that,

"Considering the fact that there will be holidays during this period, lakhs and lakhs of devotees are likely to visit Somnath Temple and in its adjoining religious areas and if the assembly therein is allowed to take meat/fish and non-vegetarian dishes in those specified areas it is not only going to hurt the sentiments of the devotees and believers of Somnath Temple and its adjoining religious areas that is likely to cause inconvenience and annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the places in concern and its vicinity by such assembly."

Additionally, he argued that the single-judge had wrongly quashed the notification. He relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad and Punjab and Haryana High Courts to contend that such restrictions were permissible under the law.

Consequently, the Division Bench granted interim relief and ordered that the August 10 notification would remain in force until the next hearing. It also sought responses from the restaurant owners and directed that the appeal be heard along with a 2018 petition.

The matter will be next heard on November 25.

Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, along with Government Pleader GH Virk and Assistant Government Pleaders Dharitri Pancholi and Brijensingh Thakur appeared for the State and other petitioners.

Advocate Asarar L Mansuri represented the restaurant owners.

[Read Division Bench Order]

[Read Single Bench Judgment]