Right to Food: How the ban on sale of non-veg food is an issue where imposed majoritarian faith clashes with the Indian Constitution With self-declared vigilante pressuring authorities to shut non-veg shops during festivals, CJP questions the erosion of constitutionalism and the law by such majoritarian pressures

24, Oct 2025 | Aman Khan

When does professed “devotion” cross the line and become discrimination—or even hate? Across several Indian cities this festive season, the right to eat and the right to trade have found themselves entangled in the rhetoric of faith and power has been misused through the machinery of local administration.  Maihar and Umaria in Madhya Pradesh to Dehradun and Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, district officials—often responding to pressure from vigilante groups—have ordered meat shops to close during Navratri (September 22-October 2), citing “public sentiment” and “religious harmony.”

In Maihar, where the state tourism department had declared the town a “religious city,” the ban on selling meat, fish, and eggs effectively halted the livelihood of small butchers and street vendors for over a week. These directives, though framed as temporary, raise a larger concern that can constitutionally guaranteed freedoms—of choice, privacy, and livelihood—be curtailed to accommodate the societal pressure?

Courts have repeatedly questioned the legality of such bans, yet self-styled moral guardians continue to harass vendors, check identity cards, and force shop closures, turning dietary preference into a test of loyalty. Behind every shuttered meat stall lies more than a dispute over food—it is a question of equality, dignity, and economic justice.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

If the Constitution guarantees every citizen both the right to eat what they choose and the freedom to trade under Articles 19 and 21, why are meat shops still being ordered shut, and why are non-vegetarians compelled to give up their choice in the name of a section of the majority community’s devotion?

It is no coincidence then that in all states where such unlawful and unconstitutional ‘bans’ were made operational are ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political outfit driven by the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In the eleven plus years that this politics has ruled India, unlawful and unconstitutional acts that specifically target the cultural, food and religious practices of minorities, Dalits and Adivasis have been normalised. 

Forced shutdown in Madhya Pradesh

In Madhya Pradesh’s Maihar and Umaria districts, local administrations imposed a ban on the sale of meat, fish, and eggs during the Navratri festival. In Maihar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Divya Patel explained that the decision was taken because the town is home to the revered Maa Sharda temple, which draws lakhs of devotees during the festival. “Maihar is a religious city and Navratri begins at this time, so the administration is banning the sale of meat, fish, and eggs from September 22 to October 2,” she said.

 

Maihar: Religious city declared by the MP Tourism Department

Patel further noted that Maihar has been officially designated a “religious city” by the Madhya Pradesh Tourism Department. “The Maa Shardey Kwar Navratri fair will be conducted from September 22 to October 2. Lakhs of visitors filled with devotion come to Maihar from every corner of the country for Maa Sharda’s darshan,” she added.

The order, issued on September 20 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 empowers authorities to take preventive action in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. Violations of the order invite prosecution under Section 233 of the BNSS, carrying a penalty of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2,500.

Ban imposed after meeting with community representatives

A similar order was passed in Umaria by SDM Kamlesh Neeraj, who said the decision was made “after discussions with members of different religious communities.” The SDM stated that participants in the meeting voluntarily agreed to ban the sale and consumption of non-vegetarian food—such as chicken, fish, and eggs—during Navratri “in view of the festival’s sanctity.”

This, however, is not a new development. In March this year, Maihar authorities had issued a similar order during the ‘Maa Shardey Chaitra Navratri Fair,’ citing the influx of pilgrims.

Amid reports of ban in Bhopal, administration clarifies

Meanwhile, social media posts and some media outlets claimed that a similar blanket ban on non-vegetarian food had been imposed in Bhopal. The Bhopal Collector, Kaushalendra Vikram Singh, dismissed these claims through an official statement on X, clarifying that “no such order has been issued by the Bhopal District Administration.”

 

 

Prem Shankar Shukla, Public Relations Officer of the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, told The Hindu that no extended restrictions were in place. “Each year, a calendar is issued after consultation with various departments and the BMC Commissioner, with certain days marked for special instructions—but we have never had any 8–9-day period in our calendar,” he said.

A pattern beyond administrative closure: harassment, hate and restrictions

The repeated closure of meat shops and eateries during religious/festival periods is not an isolated administrative act—it often stems from pressure by self-declared moral vigilantes and local community leaders. What may appear as a routine or “symbolic” closure during festivals is, in reality, part of a growing pattern seen across several cities in India.

In recent years, incidents of harassment, forced shutdowns, and restrictions on the sale or consumption of non-vegetarian food have become common during major religious observances and yatras. These actions—whether carried out by local authorities or vigilante groups—are frequently justified in the name of respecting sentiments during festivals such as Navratri, Radhastami, and Sawan/Shravan, as well as Jain observances like Paryushan. Similar restrictions are also imposed during large pilgrimages such as the Kanwar Yatra reported TOI and the Braj Mandal Jalabhishek Yatra reported Hindustan Times.

Harassment and intimidation:

  • In Sagarpur, Delhi on August 31, Hindu nationalist Vipin Rajput harassed a Muslim couple at a roadside meat stall, accusing them of cutting meat in the open during the Radhastami festival. 

 

  • In Vrindaban, Mathura, UP on August 6, Bajrang Dal leader Deepak Tiwari harassed a biryani street vendor for selling non-veg along the Kanwar Yatra route, accusing him of attempting to desecrate the kanwars. 

 

  • In Loni, Ghaziabad, UP on July 10, BJP MLA Nandkishor Gurjar shut down a meat vendor, citing the Hindu month of Sawan and the movement of Kanwar Yatris along the route. 

 

  • In Ghaziabad, UP on July 18, Hindu nationalist supporters stopped a Muslim man transporting meat during the Hindu month of Shravan. 

 

 

  • In Ghaziabad, UP on July 15, VHP-Bajrang Dal leader Manoj Verma stopped a Blinkit delivery person transporting chicken, questioning him for delivering meat during the month of Shravan. 

 

 

  • In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on July 21, Kali Sena leader Bhupesh Joshi warned Muslim meat sellers not to open their shops on Mondays during the month of Shravan, threatening violence. 

 

 

  • In Katra, Muzaffarpur, Bihar on September 27, Cow vigilantes from Bajrang Dal harassed a man for carrying meat and accused him of cow slaughter during Navratri. 

 

 

Forced closures and administrative action:

  • In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on September 15, Hindu Raksha Dal staged a protest demanding a ban on meat sales during Navratri, targeting meat shops and raising ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans. 

 

  • In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on September 23, Kali Sena leader Bhupesh Joshi forcibly shut down a meat shop, citing the festival of Navratri. 

 

 

  • In Ambheta, Saharanpur, UP on September 23, Police instructed meat, fish, and egg shops via loudspeakers to shut down, citing the celebration of Navratri. 

 

 

  • In Kaiser Bagh, Lucknow, UP on September 22, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha carried out a campaign to force meat and fish shops to close for Navratri.

 

  • In Khandwa, MP on July 6, the administration sealed a non-vegetarian eatery operated by a Muslim individual after allegations that meat had been served to Kanwariyas in a tomato-dish. 

 

 

  • In Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP on July 17, Hindu Raksha Dal forced KFC and Nazeer Foods to shut down, stating non-vegetarian food was not permitted during the month of Shravan. 

 

 

Memorandums for festival bans and restrictions:

  • In Satna, Madhya Pradesh on September 19, VHP/Bajrang Dal submitted a memorandum demanding action against meat, fish, and egg shops, citing Navratri. 

 

 

  • In Bairad, Shivpuri, MP on September 24, VHP-Bajrang Dal members demanded a ban on meat, egg, and alcohol shops during Navratri, plus restrictions on non-Hindu entry to celebrations.

 

  • In Annapur, Madhya Pradesh on September 23, VHP-Bajrang Dal members demanded a ban on meat shops during Navratri. 

 

 

  • In Behat, Sahranpur, UP on September 22, VHP-Bajrang Dal demanded that meat shops remain closed on all days of Navratri. 

 

 

  • In Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh on September 22, VHP-Bajrang Dal demanded the immediate closure of shops selling meat, alcohol, and eggs during Navratri and barring non-Hindus from Garba events.

 

 

Forced administrative closures:

  • In Dug, Jhalawar, Rajasthan on September 4, the local administration removed meat shops along main roads, citing them as “illegal,” after demands from Hindu nationalist groups (Shiv Sena)

 

 

  • In Indore, MP on September 13, at a VHP National level meeting, CM Mohan Yadav highlighted government actions like restricting open meat sales and peddled anti-Muslim conspiracy theories (“love jihad,” “land jihad”). 

 

 

  • In Purnia, Bihar on August 25, Union Minister Giriraj Singh urged attendees to buy only from Hindu vendors, eat only jhatka meat, and avoid halal, while referring to alleged immigrants as “demons.”

 

 

  • In Lucknow, UP on July 17, an Antarrashtriya Hindu Mahasangh leader urged Hindus to stop eating meat, claiming it employs non-Hindus, and called for buying goods only from Hindu traders.

 

 

Constitutional validity of meat bans in India

The wave of forced closures and targeted harassment over the sale or consumption of non-vegetarian food during festivals raises a critical constitutional question: can faith override fundamental rights? While such actions are often justified as “respecting public sentiment,” they strike at the core of India’s constitutional guarantees—equality, freedom of choice, and the right to livelihood.

Even when these restrictions come through official orders, they stand on shaky legal ground. Administrative bans or “temporary” closures imposed during festivals like Navratri or Paryushan directly conflict with Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit curbs on personal liberty or trade merely on grounds of religious sentiment. In effect, these measures—whether by law or by intimidation—create a regime of unequal citizenship, where what one can eat or sell depends on their faith or location.

As such notifications or circulars have a far-reaching impact on the entire meat industry and infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on trade or business, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The unofficial ban on meat – because shops have been effectively closed by owners unaware of the directive’s illegality or too concerned to challenge it violates three principles of the Constitution of India as equality, freedom to trade, and the right to “self-determination” and freedom of choice. 

Section 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Indian citizens. It respects the general principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable classification among people. A ban on the sale of meat certainly warrants such discrimination.  

Some individuals’ livelihood depends on selling meat. Right to Livelihood is safeguarded by the fundamental rights enshrined under Indian Constitution. To know the details about Fundamental Rights under Constitution of India, enrol for the below-mentioned course

Article 14: “reasonable classification” and “understandable distinction”

The two main principles on which Article 14 is based are “reasonable classification” and “understandable distinction”. This means that the classification of people/things must be based on conceivable differences, which means where there is a law that distinguishes between two groups of people or things, any distinction must be understandable, “reasonable and wise” and must not be “artificial “.

Ban on sale of meat have failed this test. One group most affected by these bans are small-scale butchers, whose livelihoods depend on selling meat daily, which is sold for free online or in restaurants. 

Section 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides the right to practice any profession or engage in any profession, trade, or business.

Constitutional anchors of dietary freedom and trade

The Right to Food and the freedom to pursue a livelihood are enshrined in the Indian Constitution, making restrictions on non-vegetarian food a complex legal challenge. The core protections are found in the “Golden Triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

The right to self-determination and freedom of choice in one’s diet is protected under Article 21 (Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, ruled that any law depriving a person of “personal liberty” must pass the test of due process. Later, the Court affirmed that what one eats is one’s personal affair, a part of the right to privacy included in Article 21, and that non-vegetarians “cannot be compelled to become vegetarian for a long period.” In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared privacy to be a fundamental right, specifically noting that it includes an individual’s “food habits.”

Concurrently, the right to sell meat is protected under Article 19(1)(g), guaranteeing the freedom to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This right can only be limited under Section 19(6) by law and on reasonable grounds deemed to be in the public interest. 

The Supreme Court, in Mohd. Faruk vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (1970), explicitly stated that a prohibition on trade “will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people.”

The myth of a primarily vegetarian India

The political narrative often used to justify meat bans—that India is fundamentally vegetarian—belies ground reality and recent survey data. This homogenising project, often led by right-wing supremacist groups demanding bans, is specifically a targeted assault on India’s Muslim, Christian, and Dalit minorities. The underlying narrative is that “authentic Indians” are primarily vegetarian.

Contrary to this claim, the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) for 2019-21 shows a clear rise in non-vegetarian food consumption. Over two-thirds of Indians (aged 15–49) “eat non-vegetarian food daily, weekly or occasionally.” This 2022 hate-buster by Citizens for Justice and Peace revealed non-vegetarian food consumers have increased in India, including in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states like Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, as per data released by the recent National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5). Furthermore, a 2021 Pew Research Centre report emphasises that 61% of Indians do not describe themselves as vegetarians, with only 39% of adults following a vegetarian diet. 

Even among Hindus, who constitute 80% of the population, a 2018 BBC report noted that only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian and that Hindus are “major meat-eaters.”

Judicial test of proportionality and arbitrariness

Any government action, such as a meat ban, must withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny, requiring proof that the restriction is both reasonable and proportional, and is not an arbitrary executive decision.

For a ban to be upheld in court, the city or state must demonstrate that the restrictions are “reasonable” and respect the “doctrine of proportionality.” This doctrine requires the state action to serve a “legitimate goal of the government” and be “necessary,” meaning it must be the least intrusive means possible to achieve that goal. The twin test for reasonable classification, laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1, requires a rational nexus between the classification and the object of the law. (Para 115)

The judgement can be read here:

Download PDF

 

We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non-vegetarian: SC

The judiciary has expressed strong reservations about arbitrary bans. In 2020, while hearing a plea filed by Akhand Bharat Morcha (Undivided India Rally) challenging Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to ban Halal meat, the Supreme Court remarked that, “Tomorrow you will say nobody should eat meat? We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non-vegetarian” as Live Law reported

Similarly, in 2019, while dismissing a PIL by Health Wealthy Ethical World Guide India Trust seeking a ban on meat export, the Court orally remarked, “Do you want everybody in this country to be vegetarian? We can’t issue an order that everyone should be vegetarian.” Reported LiveLaw.

A ban is also vulnerable if it is arbitrary. For instance, in Delhi in 2022 the Hindu reported that, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation’s Mayor Mukkesh Suryaan (BJP) decided to shut down all meat shops during Navratri, arguing that “99 percent of households in Delhi don’t even use garlic and onion.” This decision, taken without a public notice or consultation, bypassed the Commissioner, who holds the official power to impose such bans under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 

The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), had stated that “Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies,” meaning any arbitrary state action violates Article 14 (Equality before law).

Cultural pluralism and judicial defence of choice

Citing vague reasons like “foul smell” or “hurting religious feelings” conflicts with India’s diverse religious practices, prompting courts to defend the fundamental right to choice.

The Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2017) held that the right to choice of food falls within the fundamental right to food and is a part of the “private life of an individual.” 

The Court observed that such trade or profession may prima facie face complete prohibition and affect the livelihood of those involved in this trade and profession thereby impinging their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Not only this the same is also coupled with the issues relating to their livelihood apart from their trade and profession, that would also impinge Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The order of Allahabad High Court dated April 3, 2017 can be read here

Download PDF

 

Similarly, on May 6, 2016, the Bombay High Court in Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2016) struck down certain beef ban amendments, holding that “the State cannot make an intrusion into his home and prevent a citizen from possessing and eating food of his choice.”

The judgement of Bombay High Court dated May 6, 2016 can be read here

Download PDF

 

You don’t like non-veg food, it is your lookout: Gujrat High Court

In December 2021, the Gujarat High Court rapped the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) for prohibiting street sales of non-vegetarian food, questioning, “You don’t like non-veg food, it is your lookout. How can you decide what people should eat outside? How can you stop people from eating what they want?”,

This judicial stance shows that the constitutional mandate for tolerance and compassion must prevail over a section’s “susceptibilities and sentiments.”

The cultural reality is that while some North Indians abstain from meat during festivals like Navratri, Bengalis celebrate Durga Puja (which falls concurrently) with fish and mutton as part of their essential ritual and food system. The sale of non-veg food outside Durga Puja pandals is legal because the constitutional right to trade (Article 19) and choice (Article 21) cannot be arbitrarily curtailed based on a specific community’s fasting tradition.

Disproportionate impact and communal targeting

Despite this fairly consistent jurisprudence, the ruling political dispensation in many states, unashamedly flaunting its selective majoritarian ideology, has used its executive power to impose—even violently—food bans. Meat bans primarily harm small-scale vendors from marginalised communities, exploiting their economic vulnerability and often revealing a clear communal intent.

The ban is seen as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.), as it not only discriminates between different religious groups but also discriminates between the economic capability of the vendors. The only group severely affected are small-scale meat vendors, whose livelihood depends on daily sales. 

The meat, however, remains freely available in supermarkets and online stores catering to the affluent.

Such executive orders cause immediate economic disruption. The sudden closure of approximately 30 meat shops in Delhi’s INA market during the 2022 Navratri ban, without notice, severely affected daily wage earners employed in the meat and egg supply chains, as the Hindu reported

Boycott of non-veg within the non-veg: communal hatred

The political discourse surrounding the ban often targets specific communities. Calls for a boycott of ‘Halal’ meat—associated with Muslim dietary habits—by leaders like BJP General Secretary CT Ravi who termed it ‘economic jihad,’ reveal a clear communal intention rather than a neutral, public interest objective. 

 

This tactic of harassment is also seen in incidents like BJP MLA Nand Kishor Gurjar personally forcing Muslims to shut down their meat shops in Ghaziabad.

 

 

The incidents involving the harassment of meat sellers and consumers, often by right-wing groups and cow vigilantes, can be grouped into distinct categories based on the alleged justification or context. These incidents primarily revolve around religious festivals, allegations of illegality (often related to beef/cow slaughter or operating without a license), and general intimidation campaigns against Muslim vendors.

Cow vigilantism and allegations of Beef/illegal meat sale

These incidents specifically involve right-wing groups or individuals alleging the sale or transport of beef or illegal meat, often resulting in assault, seizure, or threats.

  • In Soron, Kasganj, UP on August 3, VHP-Bajrang Dal members brutally assaulted a Muslim man, alleging he was selling beef along the Kanwar Yatra route. 

 

 

  • In Surat, Gujarat on August 9, Cow vigilantes from the Pranin Foundation stopped a Muslim auto driver carrying meat, alleging he was illegally transporting beef. 

 

 

  • In Phagwara, Kapurthala, Punjab on July 2, Cow vigilantes from Gau Raksha Dal assaulted men at a dhaba, alleging the meat in cold storage was beef. 

 

 

  • In Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra on June 22, Bajrang Dal cow vigilantes raided a Meat market, alleging all of it was beef, seizing meat from customers and butchers with police assistance.

 

 

  • In Assam, nearly 200 were held and over 1,000 kg of suspected meat was seized in raids; the CM praised the action with an Islamophobic tone. 

Anti-Muslim economic boycott campaigns

Anti-Muslim economic boycott campaigns refer to organised efforts that seek to exclude Muslim individuals or businesses from local markets and community economic activity. These incidents often involve public calls by the right-wing outfits for the closure of Muslim-owned establishments, explicit warnings discouraging people from buying from non-Hindu vendors, and political or social rhetoric promoting economic and social segregation.

CJP’s documentation on socio-economic boycotts tracks the alarming spread of hate-driven campaigns that target livelihoods and deepen communal divisions across India. The resource chronicles a decade of incidents where economic exclusion has been used as a tool of discrimination—particularly against Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis—through calls to boycott, denial of business, and restrictions on trade.

From Bajrang Dal’s “Apna Tyohar” campaign in Madhya Pradesh urging Hindus to avoid Muslim businesses during Diwali (2024), to public oaths of economic boycott in Chhattisgarh (2023), and anti-minority rallies in Faridabad making open calls for genocide (2023), the reports expose a coordinated trend of communal mobilisation through economic segregation.

Earlier records highlight the structural inequalities faced by marginalised groups, including discrimination in housing, education, and employment, and the underrepresentation of Muslims in India. 

Threats and forced closures based on location/proximity to temple:

  • In Govardhan, Mathura, UP on September 2, Cow vigilantes threatened a meat shop owner, warning him to shut down permanently.

 

 

  • In Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh on September 7, AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal members warned meat vendors to permanently shut their shops, citing the presence of a nearby temple.

 

  • In Vrindavan, Mathura, UP on August 11, Cow vigilante Deepak Tiwari forced a biryani seller to shut down, declaring that meat would not be allowed in public. 

 

 

  • In Sagarpur, Delhi on August 16, Hindu nationalists forcibly shut down a meat shop, saying they would not allow meat stores in the vicinity of a temple. 

 

 

  • In Farukh Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP on May 29, BJP MLA Nandkishore Gurjar detained meat/fish vendors, demanding their arrest and citing nearby Air Force Station and temples. 

 

 

Moral policing and illegal identity checks

Based on the witnessed incidents during the Kanwar Yatra, a disturbing pattern has emerged where right-wings groups engage in the illegal checking of identity cards and the religious segregation of vendors, directly contributing to subsequent harassment, vandalism, and clashes.

This self-appointed moral policing, distinct from administrative action, begins with practices like on June 30, 2025, the Hindu nationalists led by Swami Yashveer Maharaj checked the Aadhaar cards of food stall workers in Meerut, UP, to ascertain their religion.

 

 

Similarly, on July 13, 2025, the Vishwa Hindu Parishand (VHP) pasted “Say with pride, we are Hindus” stickers on Hindu-owned shops in Mandoli Chungi, Delhi, to identify them to pilgrims. This explicit religious filtering creates a hostile environment that encourages vigilante actions. 

 

 

The result is immediate conflict and humiliation, as evidenced on July 7 in Muzaffarnagar, UP, where Kanwar yatris vandalised an eatery over the mere presence of onion and garlic.

 

 

Furthermore, on July 15, 2025, in Mahrajpur, Chhatarpur, MP, where a vendor was publicly humiliated and forced to perform sit-ups by the Hindu Jodo Sangathan for operating a non-vegetarian eatery named ‘Krishna Dhaba.’ 

 

 

Such targeted identity screening and harassment rapidly escalates into property damage and public shaming, demonstrating the dangers posed by these extra-legal moral policing actions against vendors.

A straightjacket ban on meat cannot be imposed: Bombay HC

On September 14, 2015, a division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice A.A. Sayed, remarked that a blanket or “straightjacket” ban on meat was not appropriate, especially in a metropolitan city like Mumbai. The judges stressed the need to consider the city’s diverse character, stating, “The ban is on slaughter and sale of meat. What about other sources through which meat can be availed? What about packaged meat that is already available in the market?”

The High Court also said that “We are only going by law and not by sentiment and politics.”

The order of Bombay High Court dated September 14, 2015 can be read here

Download PDF

 

When SC said meat ban cannot be forced down the throat of any one

The 2015 order the Bombay High Court subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, the Court refused to overturn the Bombay High Court’s interim stay on the Maharashtra government’s order restricting meat sales. A bench comprising Justices T.S. Thakur and Kurian Joseph remarked that such restrictions cannot be “forced down the throat of anyone,” emphasising the need for tolerance in a pluralistic society. 

The Court acknowledged that while religious sentiments must be respected, abrupt bans, especially those affecting personal dietary choices and livelihoods, raise constitutional concerns. 

The Bombay High Court also questioned the legality and practicality of a sudden, extended ban, noting Mumbai’s metropolitan character and the potential impact on traders and consumers alike. The court also highlighted that bans should not be politically motivated or implemented without adequate notice. 

P&H HC stays closure of private meat shops in Ambala during Paryushana, citing Bombay HC precedent

Similarly in 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on August 24, 2022 stayed the Haryana government’s order mandating the closure of all private meat shops and slaughterhouses in Ambala district during the Jain festival ‘Paryushana Parv’, observed from August 24 to September 1, 2022. The Urban Local Bodies Department had issued the directive for a complete nine-day shutdown of meat-related businesses across the state. 

However, the bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal passed the stay order while hearing a writ petition filed by Rajpal Poultry Farm and others, who contended that such a blanket ban infringed upon their constitutional right to carry on trade and the dietary rights of the general public. 

The petitioners also relied on the Bombay High Court ruling in Bombay Mutton Dealers Association v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 2 Bom CR 171 where a similar state directive was stayed, with the court emphasising that public dietary choices should not be curtailed to appease any one religious group.

The order of P&H High Court dated august 24, 2022 can be read here

Download PDF

 

Rajasthan govt bans meat, egg sales statewide on ‘Paryushan Parv’ and ‘Anant Chaturdashi’

However, in 2025, on August 22, the Rajasthan government issued an order mandating the closure of all meat, egg, and slaughterhouse operations across the state on two upcoming religious occasions — August 28 (Paryushan Parv) and September 6 (Anant Chaturdashi). Notably, for the first time, the ban also extends to egg-selling shops and street vendors, a decision made in consideration of the religious sentiments of the Jain community.

Traditionally, only slaughterhouses and meat shops were affected, but the latest directive from the Department of Autonomous Governance explicitly includes egg vendors, impacting over a thousand small sellers in Jaipur alone.

This August 22 directive and order fails to cite any specific legal provision, rule, or circular to justify its issuance, nor does it outline any grounds of reasonable restriction or broader public interest to support such a measure.

Blanket ban orders without implementing open slaughtering and display of meat in shops

The Bombay High Court’s 2015 order had also asked if the Jain community had a problem, why a directive could not be issued against ‘open slaughtering and display of meat in shop’, as the petitioners claimed that the decision is unconstitutional as it affects the livelihood of a section of people and favours a small percentage of population. 

Reasonable restriction: Rajasthan HC upholds ban on meat shops near public temples

On September 1, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to uphold the cancellation of meat shop licences near public temples can be viewed as a reasonable restriction grounded in statutory and regulatory provisions rather than an arbitrary or faith-driven action. The Court, in its detailed judgment, clarified that the prohibition on operating meat shops within 50 meters of temples or schools is supported by law — specifically, Sections 269 and 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011). 

These provisions empower local authorities to regulate food businesses to ensure hygiene, public order, and respect for community sensitivities in mixed-use localities.

The court said that even unregistered temples qualify as “public temples” if they are open to and used by the public for worship, the Court emphasised substance over technical form. 

Importantly, it noted that the restriction does not amount to a blanket or discriminatory ban on meat trade; rather, it is a spatial limitation designed to balance the right to livelihood under Article 19(1) (g) with the right to religious practice and public decency under Article 25 and Article 19(6) of the Constitution. 

The order, therefore, represents an attempt to maintain civic harmony and ensure regulatory compliance, while highlighting that lawful trade in meat can continue outside prohibited zones. In this context, the ruling stands as an example of how reasonable restrictions can operate within constitutional limits — regulating, but not extinguishing, the right to trade and livelihood.

The order of Rajasthan High Court September 1, 2025 can be read here

Download PDF

 

Qureshi community’s protest against harassment and vigilante attacks

The Qureshi community’s (Traditional meat sellers) state-wide strike in Maharashtra, which brought over 300 cattle markets to a standstill, exposed the growing tension between faith-driven moral policing and constitutionally guaranteed livelihood rights. Began as a protest against alleged police harassment and attacks by self-styled cow vigilantes soon evolved into a larger commentary on how religion is increasingly influencing administrative action. As cited, across cities, local authorities—often under pressure from vigilante groups—have ordered the closure of non-vegetarian shops during festivals or after religious gatherings, citing “public sentiment.” 

Yet such measures, lacking legal justification, raise critical questions about constitutional validity. The community’s demand—to permit the slaughter of unfit bulls and curb vigilante interference—reflects not defiance, but an appeal for lawful protection and economic fairness.

The unstoppable harassment and violence of self-proclaimed gaurakshaks

Moreover, after meeting a delegation of the Qureshi community led by former minister Nawab Malik and MLA Sana Malik, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar convened a discussion with senior police officials in August, 2025. Following the meeting, the Maharashtra police issued a circular on August 13 clarifying that only authorised police officers can act against illegal cattle transport. “It is illegal for private individuals to stop or check vehicles carrying livestock,” the order read, Maktoob Media reported.

Constitution does not permit faith to dictate food

However, the recurring crackdowns on non-vegetarian food—whether through official diktats or vigilante coercion—serve violates the right to eat at choice and trade, the quiet surrender of governance to religious majoritarianism. A “respect for sentiment” too often ends in discrimination, exclusion, and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

The Constitution does not permit faith to dictate food, nor sentiment to supersede rights. Yet, in city after city, devotion has been weaponised into policy, and piety into policing. Each forced closure and boycott not only robs small vendors—many from marginalised communities—of their daily income, but also fractures the secular promise that every citizen has the right to eat, sell, and live with dignity.

The judiciary has made its stance clear that tolerance, not enforcement, defines India’s pluralism. But when administrative power bends to the loudest voices of faith, it is not harmony that follows—it is hierarchy. Until the state reclaims neutrality and upholds the rule of law over religious pressure, the right to food and livelihood will remain hostage to belief, not protected by the Constitution.

Related

Consumption non-vegetarian food growing in India: NFHS-5

Policing our Plate: What does an enforced Meat Ban mean?

Mob lynching: Three separate incidents surface, even minors and partially disabled Muslims not safe

 

Act Now to help CJP sustain initiatives like Citizens Tribunals, Public Hearings within Communities, Campaigns and Memoranda to Statutory Commissions. With your support we will continue to Petition Courts and Non-Judicial Authorities to protect some of India's most vulnerable people. Join us.
Donate Now

Tags:

#communityresources #hate-hatao #hate-hatao-desh-bachao #hate-watch

 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Go to Top
Nafrat Ka Naqsha 2023