Right to consume safe, hygienic food part of right to life under Article 21: Gujarat High Court

Right to consume safe and hygienic food is a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Gujarat High Court said while refusing to grant relief to illegal meat shops [Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai vs Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani]..A division bench of Justices NV Anjaria and Niral Mehta said that the duty to ensure safe food is an obligation on the State authorities, which they discharge by implementing and enforcing the food safety norms and other regulatory measures prescribed in the different statutes."For the consumers of any food including the meat and meat products, there is a right to have safe food. The right to food with hygiene is also concomitant to Article 21 of the Constitution, as the right to food itself is. Article 21 would also envelope in it a right to safe food. This would represent the other side of the coin when the meat vendors would insist for doing business even the meat is unstamped meat or that the slaughter house is not licensed or the norms compliant," the bench observed. .The bench, therefore, refused relief in a slew of applications filed by meat and chicken shop owners seeking permission to continue their businesses, which they said were shut by the civic authorities. The shops were shut on orders of the High Court passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that they were operating in violation of various mandatory norms. The PIL petition sought implementation of the Supreme Court judgment and also the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which mandate that animals be slaughtered only in licensed slaughter houses. As per the PIL petition, thousands of shops across Gujarat were selling 'unstamped' meat, which would mean meat not procured from slaughter houses but procured by killing animals in the local shops only.The shop owners, however, argued that they have the right to carry on their own business and thus their profession must be protected. .The bench, in its judgment, said that the right to business is not an absolute right. "Right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right, but not a carte blanche. The laws are enacted and operate in public good and public interest. The freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be subserving to public health and food safety requirements," the bench observed. The applicant shop owners cannot be permitted to assert unrestricted freedom to do business in meat or to run slaughter houses on the ground of religious occasion, when they are otherwise non-compliant of the norms in law, the Court underlined."The applicants cannot draw for them such unrestricted right to do the business on the canvass. A bare ground may not be permitted to be advanced to justify to seek laxity in the food safety or pollution norms. The activity of running unlicensed slaughter houses and selling unstamped meat could not be approved or permitted without the stakeholders complying the applicable laws," the bench added. .It also noted that the applicants had not challenged any of the provisions of the Acts or Regulations based on which action was taken against them. The provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety Regulations imposing restrictions on the meat shops to maintain hygiene and other standards, are reasonable restrictions on the right of the vendors of the meat and slaughter house owners to run their business, the Court said. It further noted that all slaughter houses and meat shops wee not ordered to be closed down and those shops complying with the norms have been permitted to run their business."Even the shops and premises owners who are given the show cause notice or whose shops are ordered to be closed, could meet with the requirements of law and after fulfilling the norms, may approach the competent authority seeking to reopen their business premises or shops," the bench added. .Senior Advocate Percy Kavina along with advocates Ejaz Qureshi, Hashim Qureshi and Rizvan Shaikh appeared for the Shop Owners. Senior Advocate Asim Pandya along with advocate Jay Shah appeared for the PIL Petitioner. Government Pleader Manisha Lavkumar Shah along with advocates Chintan Dave and KM Antani represented the State. .[Read Judgment]