For Prelims: Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6), Gujarat Police Act, 1951, Somnath Temple, Distance of ban from temple, Prohibited items, Act under which ban imposed, Nodal body defending ban
For Mains: Reasonable restrictions, Article 19(6), police power of state, religious sentiment vs trade rights, judicial restraint
Source:
Indian Express
5 facts for one-day exams
SSC, railway, police and teaching exams ask direct questions like these.
- The Supreme Court refused to stay the ban on non-veg food within 500 metres of Somnath temple.
- The ban was imposed under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate.
- The distance of the ban from the temple is 500 metres.
- The restaurant owners invoked Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade).
- The Gujarat High Court was asked to decide the appeals within two months.
Why in the news?
The Supreme Court has refused to grant interim relief to eateries challenging a ban on non-vegetarian food within 500 metres of the Somnath temple in Gujarat. The ban, imposed by the District Magistrate under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, has been upheld by the Gujarat High Court pending final appeal. The case involves the balance between religious sentiment and the fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Summary
- The SC refused to stay the Gujarat High Court's order keeping in force a ban on preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of the Somnath temple.
- The ban was imposed by the Gir Somnath District Magistrate's notification dated August 10, 2026, under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
- Eateries had been operating lawfully for 35-40 years and argued the restriction violates Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on any trade or business).
- The SC suggested a 'middle path' approach and asked the HC to decide pending appeals within two months.
Highlights
SC Refuses Interim Relief
The Supreme Court declined to stay the ban on non-veg food near Somnath temple, directing the Gujarat High Court to decide appeals within two months.
Legal Basis: Gujarat Police Act, 1951
The ban was imposed by the District Magistrate under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, which the petitioners argue does not empower a permanent prohibition on sale of non-vegetarian food.
Middle Path Approach Suggested
The SC indicated that a balanced solution might be necessary to resolve the dispute between religious sentiments and the right to carry on business.
Background
The Somnath temple is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas and holds immense religious significance for Hindus. The Gir Somnath District Magistrate issued a notification on August 10, 2026, prohibiting the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of the temple. The ban covers areas along specified routes and localities in Prabhas Patan, Veraval taluka. Eateries operating for 35-40 years challenged the notification, leading to a single judge of the Gujarat High Court quashing it on October 30, 2026, on grounds of lack of power under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, and violation of Article 19(1)(g). However, a division bench of the HC stayed that decision the same day, restoring the ban.
Key Analysis and Impact
The case highlights the constitutional tension between religious freedom/state police power and the fundamental right to trade. The Gujarat Police Act, 1951, is a state law used to regulate public order and safety. The petitioners argue that the Act does not authorise a permanent, area-wide ban on lawful trade. The state defends the ban citing the temple's religious significance and expected devotee influx. The SC's refusal to grant interim relief means the ban continues, impacting businesses especially during the festive season of Diwali. The court's suggestion of a 'middle path' indicates a possible compromise, such as restricting non-veg sale during specific hours or festivals rather than a blanket ban.
Way Forward
The Gujarat High Court has been asked to decide the pending appeals within two months. The SC's 'middle path' remark may guide the HC in crafting a nuanced order. The outcome will set a precedent for similar bans near other religious sites across India. The case also tests the scope of Article 19(1)(g) against state regulations under Article 19(6) (reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, etc.).
Court Orders in Somnath Non-Veg Ban Case
| Court/Bench | Order | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Single judge, Gujarat HC | Quashed the ban | October 30, 2026 |
| Division bench, Gujarat HC | Stayed single judge order, restored ban | October 30, 2026 |
| Supreme Court bench | Refused interim relief, asked HC to decide | November 6, 2026 |
Background GK
Textbook concepts you need to understand this news
- Article 19(1)(g)
- A fundamental right under the Constitution of India that guarantees the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
- Article 19(6)
- Allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the rights under Article 19(1) in the interest of public order, decency, morality, security, etc.
- Gujarat Police Act, 1951
- A state law that consolidates and amends the law relating to the regulation of police forces and the maintenance of public order in Gujarat.
- Somnath Temple
- One of the 12 Jyotirlinga shrines dedicated to Lord Shiva, located in Prabhas Patan, Gir Somnath district, Gujarat. It has been rebuilt several times and is a major pilgrimage site.
Facts to remember
Tap a card to see the answer. Try to recall it first.
How exams will ask this
- Data: 500 metres (distance of ban from Somnath temple)
- Nodal Body: Government of Gujarat (through District Magistrate, Gir Somnath)
- Legal Point: Article 19(1)(g) and Gujarat Police Act, 1951
Don't make this mistake!
Examiners may confuse the Act under which the ban was imposed (Gujarat Police Act, 1951) with other state police acts or the Gujarat Essential Commodities Act. They may also swap 'single judge' and 'division bench' orders: the single judge quashed the ban, while the division bench restored it. The SC did not quash or uphold the ban; it only refused interim relief.
Write these in mains answers
- Reasonable restrictions, Article 19(6), police power of state, religious sentiment vs trade rights, judicial restraint
Stuck? Get it in one tap
The government banned selling or storing non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of the Somnath temple in Gujarat. Some restaurants challenged this ban in court. The Supreme Court did not stop the ban for now and told the High Court to decide the case quickly within two months. The restaurants say they have been running lawfully for 35-40 years and the ban hurts their business.
- The Supreme Court refused to stay the ban on non-veg food within 500 metres of Somnath temple.
- The ban was imposed under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate.
- The distance of the ban from the temple is 500 metres.
- The restaurant owners invoked Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade).
- The Gujarat High Court was asked to decide the appeals within two months.
- Polity: Fundamental Rights (Article 19)
- Governance: State Police Power and Public Order
Related concepts: Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6), Gujarat Police Act, 1951, Somnath Temple
Practice questions
Pick an answer, then read the explanation.
- Q1Easy
Which constitutional article was invoked by the restaurant owners to challenge the ban on non-vegetarian food near the Somnath temple?
Explanation: The restaurant owners argued that the ban violated their fundamental right to carry on a lawful business under Article 19(1)(g). Article 21 is about life and personal liberty, Article 25 is about religious freedom, and Article 300A is about property rights. Hence, Article 19(1)(g) is the correct provision.
- Q2Hard
Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's order on the Somnath non-veg ban:
- 1.The Supreme Court permanently upheld the ban on non-vegetarian food within 500 metres of the Somnath temple.
- 2.The ban was originally imposed under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate.
- 3.The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending appeals within two months.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief; it did not permanently uphold the ban. Statement 2 is correct: the District Magistrate issued the notification under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. Statement 3 is correct: the SC asked the HC to decide the appeals within two months. Hence option C is correct.
- Q3Medium
What is the distance from the Somnath temple within which the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs has been banned?
Explanation: The District Magistrate's notification prohibited non-vegetarian food and eggs within 500 metres of the Somnath temple.
- Q4Medium
What was the primary legal argument of the restaurant owners challenging the ban on non-vegetarian food near the Somnath temple?
Explanation: Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi argued that the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 did not give the District Magistrate the power to impose a permanent ban on the sale of non-vegetarian food. The other options were not raised as primary arguments in the case. Religious freedom under Article 25 was not the basis of the challenge, and no such claim about gazette publication or caste discrimination was made.
Frequently asked questions
1. What did the Supreme Court decide about the ban on non-vegetarian food near Somnath temple?
The Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief to the eateries and asked the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending appeals within two months. The ban remains in force for now.
2. How far from Somnath temple is non-vegetarian food banned?
The ban applies within 500 metres of the Somnath temple, covering specified routes and localities in Prabhas Patan, Veraval taluka.
3. Under which law was the ban on non-veg food near Somnath temple imposed?
The ban was imposed under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 by the District Magistrate of Gir Somnath.
4. Which constitutional right did the restaurant owners claim was violated by the ban?
The restaurant owners argued that the ban violated their fundamental right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
All sources
- Original6 November 2026 · Read story
