Where law stands on eating, selling and displaying meat
NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled civic bodies in Vadodara, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Junagadh in Gujarat have last week ordered roadside food vendors and hawkers to cover non-vegetarian food, including eggs, saying an open display of the food could “hurt religious sentiments”. The roadside vendors have been asked to either stop selling non-vegetarian food items or keep them covered so that people cannot see them while passing on the roads or walking on footpaths.
Earlier, in August, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath announced that the sale of meat would be banned in certain parts of Mathura, adding to the ban orders already in force in parts of Haridwar, Rishikesh, Vrindavan, Barsana, Ayodhya, Chitrakoot, Deoband, Dewa Sharif, and Misrikh-Naimisharanya. In Haridwar, such orders exist since 1956.
Similarly, the Uttarakhand government recently inserted a new provision in the municipal laws to give itself the power to declare an area under a municipal corporation, council or Nagar panchayat as a “slaughter-free” zone to impose a total ban on slaughterhouses. Invoking this power, the state government issued a government order in March, shutting down slaughter houses in Haridwar district. Earlier, the prohibition was applicable only in areas abutting religious places.
The spate of recent orders by various municipal bodies and state governments over slaughter, sale and display of meat and non-vegetarian food warrant a serious debate because they are intimately linked with the rights of a large number of people, their livelihoods, and the right to eat the food of their choice. These are also issues touching upon the legality and constitutionality of the prohibitory executive orders, for they have an impact on the constitutional rights of people and can also relate to the fundamental duties as delineated under the Constitution of India.
Relevant constitutional provisions
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Under this article, citizens have the right to choose employment, or take up any trade or occupation as per their volition and free will.
But this right, like every other right, is not absolute. Under Article 19(6), the State can impose reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of trade, business, occupation or profession in the interest of the general public.
Every ban order must pass the test of Article 19(6) if it imposes a restriction or prohibition on any persons against carrying a lawful trade or business.
In Chintaman Rao vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that the determination by the legislature of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final or conclusive but that this is subject to supervision by this court.
“In the matter of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court watches and guards the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and in exercising its functions it has the power to set aside an Act of the Legislature if it is in violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution,” declared this judgment, holding that every prohibitory order must stand the test of reasonableness and proportionality.
Various subsequent judgments have affirmed this view and all acts of the State are measured against the yardsticks laid down in this verdict.
Article 48, which is part of the directive principles of state policy (a guidance of sorts for states in framing laws) of the Indian Constitution, lays down that the State shall organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves.
Article 51 of the Constitution underlines the fundamental duties to promote harmony among all sections of society and to preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.
Similarly, Article 51A(g) states that “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures”.
ARTICLE 51 OF THE CONSTITUTION UNDERLINES THE FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES TO PROMOTE HARMONY AMONG ALL SECTIONS OF SOCIETY AND TO PRESERVE THE RICH HERITAGE OF OUR COMPOSITE CULTURE.
Sale of meat and non-vegetarian food
In 2004, the Supreme Court examined an appeal by some hotel owners against a regulation introduced by the Rishikesh municipal board prohibiting sale of eggs in Rishikesh, Haridwar and Muni ki Reti. While the hotel owners said that the ban was a violation of their right to freely practice trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), the Allahabad high court had held it to be a form of reasonable restriction covered under Article 19(6). That led to the appeal.
The legality of the ban order was upheld by a division bench of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash & Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh. The court cited Article 51A to underscore that the fundamental duties enjoined on citizens should also guide the legislative and executive actions of elected or nonelected institutions and organisations of citizens, including municipal bodies.
It noted that the ban was imposed in deference to religious and cultural demands of a large number of residents and pilgrims who visit Haridwar, Rishikesh and Muni ki Reti regularly and periodically on auspicious days.
“Maintenance of clean and congenial atmosphere in all religious places which are spread over all the three towns is in common interest of the residents, pilgrims and visitors... Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify complete restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian food items including eggs within the municipal limits of the towns. The high court rightly upheld it to be a reasonable restriction,” the court further held.
Commenting on the right to carry on trade or business, the top court said that trade in all kinds of food items, vegetarian or non-vegetarian, in adjoining towns and villages outside the municipal limits of three towns remained unrestricted and hence, there was no substantial harm caused to those engaged in such trade.
This judgment holds even today. But it is important to note that the Supreme Court confined its discussion in that case to issues of economic consideration and business interests; there was no challenge to the ban order by any individual in exercise of one’s right to eat food of his or her choice.