"Should have tolerance for all:" Allahabad High Court rejects PIL alleging harassment while transporting meat, liquor in Mathura

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which claimed that State authorities were harassing meat, liquor and egg consumers in the wards of Mathura Vrindavan that were notified as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage” [Shahida v State of UP].A bench of Justices Ashutosh Srivastava and Pritinker Diwaker observed that that there was no complete ban on meat and eggs, and the restriction pertained only to 22 wards in the city and not other wards."This restriction has been imposed only with respect to 22 Wards and is not applicable to other Wards of the city. Thus, there is no complete ban," the Court said.The Court said India is a country of great diversity and to keep our country united, it is absolutely essential to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects."India is a country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character and which caters to all communities, sects lingual and ethnic groups etc in the country," the Court observed.The Court went on to state that it is the Constitution which is keeping us together despite tremendous diversity as it gives equal respect to all communities, sects, linguistic and ethnic groups in the country..The petitioner, a social worker, had prayed that non-vegetarians in the 22 wards wherein meat, fish and egg shops were completely banned should be allowed to transport the restricted materials from outside for weddings and other functions.It was also prayed that the local police be prevented from harassing those transporting these materials into these wards.It was contended that on account of the restrictions, non-vegetarians residing in the notified wards were being deprived of their choice of meals and from carrying on their livelihood. Therefore, the restriction was violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution..The State, however, opposed the PIL on the grounds that Mathura and Vrindavan were prominent places with great historical and religious importance since they were the birthplace and Kreeda Sthal of Lord Krishna.It was submitted that lakhs of devotees from India and abroad visit Mathura Vrindavan for holy darshan, blessings and virtuous upliftment. Thus, with a view to maintain the historical, religious, tourism importance and above all, the sanctity of the holy places, they were notified “Holy Place of Pilgrimage”.Consequently, the sale and purchase of meat, liquor and eggs was restricted. However, the petitioner had challenged neither of the orders notifying the same, the government pointed out. The State also stressed that no fundamental right of the petitioner was infringed since only reasonable restrictions have been imposed..The Court took this submission into account stating that since the government orders were not challenged, it would not dwell upon its legality."It is apparent that the Notification dated September 10, 2021 and the Government Order dated September 17, 2021 issued by the State government have not been impugned in the writ petition. In the absence of any challenge to the above Notification and the Government Order, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the same. This Court, therefore, does not deem it appropriate to dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order," the order said..On considering the petitioner’s grievance regarding harassment, the Court observed that no constitutional provision was violated in notifying Mathura Vrindavan as the "Holy Place of Pilgrimage", and it was the government’s prerogative to do so.“Mere declaration of any particular place as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal,” held the Bench..Besides, there was no complete ban, and the restriction pertained only to 22 wards in the city and not other wards, the Court stated. It further said that the allegation of the petitioner that State authorities are harassing consumers of material meat, liquor and eggs when it comes to transportation of the same, is merely a bald and sweeping statement. "No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation," the Court noted. With these observations, the PIL was dismissed..Advocate Surendra Kumar Tripathi appeared for the petitioner while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal assisted by Chief Standing Counsel AK Goyal..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.