No unrestricted freedom to sell meat or to run slaughter houses on ground of religious occasion: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court recently observed that the right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right, but not a carte blanche.

"The freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in the larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be sub-serving to public health and food safety requirements," held the bench of Justices NV Anjaria and Niral Mehta.

The court observed so while refusing relief to the meat and chicken shop owners who sought permission to continue their businesses, which were shut by the civic authorities on the ground of unhygienic conditions and violation of various mandatory norms. 

Seeking permission to reopen the meat shops and slaughterhouses, the shop owners had canvassed their fundamental right to freedom of trade.

However, the division bench held, "The applicants can also not be permitted to assert unrestricted freedom to do business in meat or to run slaughterhouses on the ground of religious occasion, when they are otherwise non-compliant of the norms in law. The applicants cannot draw for them such unrestricted right to do the business on the canvass. A bare ground may not be permitted to be advanced to justify to seek laxity in the food safety or pollution norms".

The shop owners had moved the high court after in pursuance of a decision of the high court in a public interest litigation (PIL), their shops had been shut alleging that they were operating in violation of various laws. 

In its interim order in the said PIL, the high court had asked the competent authorities to ensure compliance of the Foods Safety Standards Act, the Foods Safety Regulations, pollution laws as well as food and animal cruelty-related laws.

The meat vendors, through their applications, contended that they had been in the business of poultry, chicken, meat since more than 35 years and they were also holding the licences issued by the Trade and Health Department, which had been renewed from time to time by the competent authority of the municipal corporations.

The shop owners argued that the closure of meat shops was illegal and amounted to deprivation and curtailment of their right to free trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Moreover, they emphasised that since month of Ramdan was underway, the State should liberally act to redress their grievances to permit them to sell the meat by allowing opening of the shops.

However, the division bench opined that the shops of the applicants were closed as they had not been complying with the norms of applicable laws.

Permission to reopen the meat shops cannot be granted eventhough the shop owners remain non-compliant of the laws. While the indirect prayer before the Court is to relax the norms, such course is not possible in law, the bench held. 

Court underscored that no order could be passed by the Court which may operate contrary to or may have the effect of disregarding the statutory prescriptions in respect of Food Safety and other regulatory norms required to be observed in larger public good.

Case Title: PATEL DHARMESHBHAI NARANBHAI Versus DHARMENDRABHAI PRAVINBHAI FOFANI