"AMC Resolution Doesn't Violate Fundamental Rights": Gujarat HC Dismisses Plea Against Slaughterhouse Closure Due To Jain Festival

The Gujarat High Court today dismissed a plea challenging the decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) to close down its sole slaughterhouse in the city on the occasion of a Jain festival.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed that the order of the AMC was applicable only for two days and that it was a reasonable restriction and did not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and therefore, the matter being meritless, was liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioner- the Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee of Gujarat. The High Court relied extensively on Articles 19(1)(g), 21, 25, 26 and 51(A)(e) to arrive to its conclusion.

Reliance was also placed on Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 wherein it was mandated that the Corporation can fix the days and hours of any market, slaughterhouse or stock yard. 

The case in brief

Essentially, the plea had been moved by Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat represented by Danish Qureshi Razawala and another person challenging the closure of the sole slaughterhouse in the city for two days. In the previous hearing of the matter, the bench had told the party-in-person that he can restrain himself for 1 or 2 days from eating (meat).

The Petitioners, challenging the closure of slaughterhouses, had argued that the Gujarat State had in the past granted permission for the supply of meat/mutton during the pandemic and had deemed it as 'essential food.'

Additionally, Art 47 of the Constitution imposed a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and improve the public health of its citizens. In the past, when a similar issue had arisen, the Punjab and Haryana Court had granted relief to the slaughterhouses.

It may be noted that that on August 30, when the party-in-person came before the bench, the Court had asked him: "why you are running at the last moment, we will not entertain this. Every season you rush to the court. You can restrain yourself for 1 day or 2 days from eating (meat)".

To this, the party-in-person argued that "…It is not about restraining, it's about fundamental rights of the citizens and we cannot imagine our country with even one minute of restraining of our fundamental rights. On other previous occasions also slaughterhouses were closed. Therefore, we came before this court, if it passes an appropriate order, this process can be curbed for the rest of the time also"

Significantly, the petitioner had also referred to an order of the High Court of December 2021, wherein in an oral remark, the Gujarat High Court had reminded the AMC not to try and control the food habits of people.

It may be noted that dealing with a plea filed by street vendors who were prohibited from selling non-vegetarian food on the streets of Ahmedabad, the Gujarat High Court had, on December 9, rapped the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) and observed how could people be prevented from eating what they want to eat.

Now, today again, when the party-in-person referred to the oral remark of the Gujarat High Court, Justice Bhatt observed that an oral remark would not help the petitioner's case.

Court's detailed order

Rejecting the contentions raised by the party-in-person, the Bench referred to Hinsa Virodhak Sangh versus Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Jamat & Ors wherein the Supreme Court had not found any illegality in the AMC imposing a 9-day closure of the slaughterhouses. Justice Bhatt observed from the Supreme Court order thus:

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Bhatt, while perusing the decision, reiterated that when the interest of the public and the rights of the citizenry as a whole are involved, the financial loss caused to individuals becomes insignificant. 

After dictating the order, Justice Bhatt told the party-in-person "Your petition is dismissed". At this very moment, the state urged the court to impose costs on the petitioner, however, the bench declined State's request.

Case title - Kul Hind Jamiat-Al Quresh Action Committee Gujarat Represented By Danish Qureshi And Mr Razaiwala Mohammed Hammad Hussain V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 367

Click Here To Read/Download Order