On March 28, 2022, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition against the Uttar Pradesh administration for banning the sale of meat and liquor in Mathura-Vrindavan region. However, in a display of appreciation for India’s pluralism the court observed, “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.”
The High Court bench of Justices Pritinker Diwaker and Ashutosh Srivastava restricted itself from dwelling into the validity of the Notification and Order of the UP Government as the Petition filed does not challenge the same.
Background of the Case
State Government’s Order/Notification
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh under its Notification dated September 10, 2021 had notified 22 wards of Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’. The notification had banned the sale of liquor and meat within a 10 square kilometers radius around Krishna Janmabhoomi in Vrindavan, Mathura.
On September 11, 2021 another consequential Order was passed by the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura according to which the registration of shops selling meat and non-vegetarian restaurants were suspended with immediate effect.
About the petition
Shahida, a social worker, had filed a Writ Petition, later on styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), in High Court of Allahabad against the State Government’s decision to ban the sale of meat and liquor. This PIL was instituted for consideration of the representation (on behalf of the residents of the ward) addressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura.
In her representation she had sought relief against complete ban on running meat, fish, egg shops etc., and also sought relief against suspension of the license of shops, non-veg hotels etc., with immediate effect.
She had also sought directions for permitting easy transportation of such restricted materials from outside for weddings and other ceremonial functions. The representation also prayed that the local police should not harass the people involved in transporting the restricted materials from outside into the said 22 notified wards.
Since Shahida’s representation was not considered by the District Magistrate, Mathura, she had moved to the High Court of Allahabad for redressal of her grievance.
Arguments in the Court from both sides
It was contended before the Court that on account of such restrictions, the people residing in these wards are deprived of their right of choice of meals and also from carrying on their business and livelihood.
It was further argued that the restriction is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Additional Adv. General, Manish Goyal assisted by Additional Chief Standing Counsel, A.K. Goyal submitted that Mathura and Vrindavan are prominent places having great historical and religious importance being the birth place and Kreeda Sthal of Lord Krishna.
In support of the state government’s order, the Counsel further submitted that the State Government with a view to maintain the historical, religious, tourism importance and above all the sanctity of the Holy places, the government issued a Notification dated September 10, 2021 declaring 22 Wards of Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan to be “Holy Place of Pilgrimage”.
The Counsel further bought the Court’s attention to the fact that the Petitioner had neither challenged the Notification (dated September 10, 2021) issued by the State Government nor the State Government Order (dated September 17, 2021) which imposes restriction on sale of meat, eggs, liquor etc.
In support to his argument that the no fundamental rights of Petitioner have been infringed by imposing reasonable restrictions, the Counsel referred to the case of Darshan Kumar and Ors v/s. The State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 1997 Alld 209). In the said case, the reasonable restrictions of Rishikesh Municipality were upheld, and which was also affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. v/s. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 402.
Court’s Observation
On March 28, 2022, the High Court opined that since there are no averments about the Notification dated September 10, 2021, and the Government Order September 17, 2021 issued by the State Government, the Petitioner was not aggrieved by the same. Hence, the Court did not dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order.
The Bench further stated that declaration of any particular place as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’ is the privilege of the State and the same does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal.
The Bench further stated, “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 allegation of the petitioner that State Authorities are harassing such consumers of the restricted material (meat, liquor and eggs) in transportation of the same is merely a bald and sweeping statement. No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation.”
The Bench also observed that no reliefs were prayed in regard to the violations of the fundamental rights taken up as grounds in the Writ Petition.
However, before dismissing the said plea, the Bench remarked, “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. It is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups etc., in the Country.”
The complete order may be read here:
Related:
Ram Navami violence: PILs seek SC monitored investigations, transfer of cases to NIA
Gujarat HC rules on PASA Act, claims Preventive Detention untenable
Delhi HC asks for Centre’s opinion on declaring the Child Marriage ‘void ab initio’