'Why Are You Encroaching On Others' Rights': Bombay High Court on PIL Seeking Ban on Advertising Non-Veg Food
The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Jain religious bodies, who were seeking a ban on advertising of non-vegetarian food items, as to why they were encroaching on someone else's right by making the demand."There is no law that provides this. You are asking us to frame law. And what about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution? Why are you encroaching on other's rights?,"...
The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Jain religious bodies, who were seeking a ban on advertising of non-vegetarian food items, as to why they were encroaching on someone else's right by making the demand.
"There is no law that provides this. You are asking us to frame law. And what about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution? Why are you encroaching on other's rights?," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed and granted the three trusts liberty to withdraw the petition and come with "better particulars and appropriate prayers."
The CJ asked the petitioner if their prayer could be allowed by the court under its Article 226 jurisdiction.
"You are asking for an order from HC directing the state to frame guidelines to ban something. It is for the legislators to decide. We can only intervene if some rights are infringed," said the court.
During the hearing, Advocate Gunjan Shah for the petitioners said that she was merely seeking the non-promotion of the non-veg food. "I'm not challenging consumption. Vegetarian persons have to see these ads on their TV," she submitted.
"An ordinary man with no knowledge of would say switch off the TV..." The CJ retorted.
Shah claimed that it is a fundamental duty to show compassion to animals and sought to amend the petition. However, the court asked her to file a fresh plea instead.
The petition was filed by Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust, Sheth Motisha Religious and Charitable Trust,Shri Vardhaman Parivar and businessman Jyotindra Ramniklal Shah. The central government, State of Maharastra, the Advertising Standards Council of India and private meat companies owning the brands like 'Licious' were made respondents in the case.
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to frame rules or guidelines to ban advertisement of non-veg food in any media. The petition also prayed for a direction to the respondents to print warning on the packaged non-veg products stating, "Consumption of non-veg food is harmful to health and environment".
Case Title: Shree Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanrnandir Trust and Ors. v. Union and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 366