"Tolerance, Respect For All Communities Essential To Keep Country United": Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Over Meat Sale Ban In Mathura-Vrindavan

"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," remarked the Allahabad High Court recently as it dismissed a PIL plea filed in connection with the decision of the UP Government to ban meat/liquor sale in Mathura-Vrindavan.

The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, however, restrained itself form commenting anything upon the validy of the order of the UP Government (meat/liquor ban in 22 municipal wards after declaring the same as a pilgrimage site) as it noted that the PIL plea had not challenged the Government Orders.

About Government's ban order

It may be noted that vide a notification issued on September 10, 2021, the Uttar Pradesh government had banned the sale of liquor and meat within a 10 square kilometers radius around Krishna Janmabhoomi in Vrindavan, Mathura. This region, which has 22 municipal wards, was also declared as a pilgrimage site.

A consequential order had been passed by the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura whereunder the registration of the shops selling meat and nonvegetarian restaurants was suspended with immediate effect.

The case in brief

Now, the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea had been moved by a social worker, Shahida who sought consideration of her representation (on behalf of the residents of the Wards) made in January this year to the District Magistrate, Mathura, against the state government's decision to ban the sale of meat and liquor.

In her representation, she had sought relief against a complete ban on running meat, fish, egg shops etc., and against suspension of the license of shops, non veg hotels etc., with immediate effect. 

She further sought permission for easy transportation of such restricted materials from outside for marriage and other ceremonial functions and had prayed that the local police may not harass such persons in transporting the restricted materials from outside into such 22 notified Wards. Now, since her representation was not considered, she had moved to the Court for redressal of her grievance.

The arguments put forth

Before the Court, she contended that on account of such restrictions imposed, the non-vegetarian persons residing in the Wards so notified are being deprived of their choice of meals and also from carrying on their business and livelihood.

It was further argued that the restriction imposed is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the Addl. Advocate General assisted by Addl. Chief Standing Counsel opposing the PIL plea argued that Mathura and Vrindavan are prominent places having great historical and religious importance being the birthplace and Kreeda Sthal of Lord Krishna.

Therefore, it was argued that the State Government, with a view to maintaining the historical, religious, and tourism importance and above all the sanctity of the Holy places, issued the Notification in question. dated 10.9.2021 declaring 22 Wards of Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan to be "Holy Place of Pilgrimage".

Further, arguing that the ban is just for the 22 wards, the State contended that the petitioner had not challenged the Notification in the plea nor the Government Order imposing restrictions on the sale / of meat, eggs, liquor etc.

Significantly, the state also argued that no fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India can be said to have been infringed by imposing reasonable restrictions on 22 Wards only.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court opined that since the PIL plea had not challenged the above Notification and the Government Order, therefore, it could be presumed that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the same. Hence, the Court did not deem it appropriate to dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order.

Further, stressing that mere declaration of any particular place as "Holy Place of Pilgrimage" does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal and that such declaration is the privilege of the state, the Court added that the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance against the same.

"The Government Order dated 17.9.2021 issued by the State Government on the other hand imposes a restriction upon the sale / purchase of meat, liquor and eggs in the 22 Wards of the Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindawan. 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" (emphasis supplied)

The Court further observed that though in the PIL plea, certain grounds were taken in relation to violation of the fundamental rights and even violation has been pointed out, but surprisingly, no relief had been prayed for in the plea and no challenge was made to the Notification and government Order.

Therefore, the Court went on to dismiss the plea, however, before doing so, the Court, in a significant observation, did remark thus:

"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." (emphasis supplied)

Advocate Surendra Kumar Tripathi appeared for the petitioner. 

Case title - Shahida v State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 183

Click Here To Read/Download Order