The Supreme Court on Friday refused to lift the ban on non-vegetarian eateries in the vicinity of Somnath Temple [Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan v. State of Gujarat & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale refused to interfere with an interim order passed by the Gujarat High Court that restored a ban on the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food around Somnath Temple.

Responding to the argument by restaurant owners that the decision would kill of businesses and that 80 percent of the country eats meat, the Court said that a balance has to be maintained and it will not say anything at this stage.

"We need to maintain a balance. We don’t say anything," the bench remarked.

The Supreme Court nevertheless asked the High Court to give a final verdict in the matter as soon as possible.

"We will request the High Court to expedite the hearing. It is the interim stage," the Court observed.

In a lighter vein, the Bench added,

"Celebrate the festival of lights (Diwali) by having sweets. Leave veg or non-veg aside."

The case concerns an August 10 notification issued by a District Magistrate in Gujarat. The notification imposed a prohibition on the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food at shops, restaurants, hotels and roadside stalls in specified areas. It covered seven specified stretches and areas, including all areas within 500 metres of Somnath Temple.

Restaurant owners, who operate establishments in the region, challenged the notification before the Gujarat High Court. A single-judge Bench of the High Court initially allowed their petition on October 30, prompting the Gujarat government to file the appeal the same day.

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.

In response to the appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the single-judge's order hours after it was passed and restored the non-veg ban.

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Representing restaurant owners who challenged the non-veg ban, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmedi said,

"80 percent of this country is non-vegetarian. Why are we getting so hypersensitive that the State is passing such orders? Permanent bans are strange. In Bijoe Immanuel, it was said that our philosophy teaches tolerance. Our constitution teaches tolerance... You can’t force a dietary habit."

He also flagged that a single-judge order lifting the ban was stayed by a Division Bench hours after it was passed, even before the single-judge's order was available to examine.

"What was the tearing urgency. We have been running eating houses since last 40 years," he said.

Opposing the restaurant owners' plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the High Court is scheduled to hear the matter in a few weeks.

"High court has kept it on 25th November.. in 2018 it was 500 meter periphery from temple. Thereafter, the government has provided a corridor. They are permitted to serve vegetarian food," he said

Ahmadi emphasised that diet is a matter of personal choice.

"Diet is a matter of choice. This (the non-veg ban) is completely killing enterprise."

The Court observed that a balance is required in such matters.

It also alluded to the fact a Constitutional Bench is slated to give its verdict in a case on larger questions about the interplay between religious freedoms (under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution) and other fundamental rights.

"Hopefully our judgement on article 25 will come soon. That will have a substantive bearing on this," the Court said.

The top court proceeded to close the plea by stating that it will direct the High Court to decide the matter in a timely manner.

"We request the High Court to decide appeal expeditiously within a period of 2 months," it ordered.

A final decision on the validity of the August 10 notification is yet to be pronounced by the Gujarat High Court's Division Bench. The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter next on November 25.