Full Breakdown
Gujarat High Court Reviews State Ban on Non-Vegetarian Food Near Somnath Temple
By Drooid · · How we work
Legal Challenge and Government Defense
On October 21, 2026, the Gujarat High Court heard a petition filed by six restaurant owners contesting a state notification that prohibits the sale and storage of non-vegetarian food within a 500-metre radius of the Somnath Temple in Gir Somnath district. The state, represented by Government Pleader G.H. Virk, argued that the restriction is necessary to preserve the religious, historical and cultural character of the pilgrimage site, which attracts approximately 1.16 crore devotees between January and September 2026—a figure Virk later rounded to around 1.2 crore. The government maintained that the ban does not force restaurants to shut down, as they may continue to serve vegetarian dishes or operate outside the notified zone.
Historical Restrictions and Pilgrimage Context
The current prohibition builds on a series of earlier measures: a 2006 notification barred eggs, meat and fish within 500 metres of the temple and along the road to the bus stand; a 2018 municipal order created a vegetarian zone on main roads; and a 2019 notification extended restrictions to additional routes. In July 2026 the state issued a fresh notification, finalised in August 2026, which retained the earlier measures and added three new routes. The government cited similar restrictions in other pilgrimage towns such as Rishikesh, Haridwar, Amritsar, Mathura-Vrindavan, Ayodhya, Tirupati-Tirumala, Vaishno Devi and Sammed Shikharji.
Arguments from Restaurant Owners
Advocate **A.L. He emphasized that the establishments have operated for more than two decades, serving both vegetarian and non-vegetarian fare, and that the 2018 and 2019 notifications did not expressly impose a 500-metre peripheral ban on their specific locations. Mansuri highlighted the absence of any recorded complaints from local residents, pointing to signatures from passers-by who expressed no objection. He also questioned the consistency of enforcement, noting that a nearby fishery harbour and industrial activities continue despite potential odour concerns, yet restaurants are singled out. The petitioners argued that the ban threatens livelihoods and the jobs of hundreds of employees, and asked what rehabilitation measures the government would provide.
Current Status and Outlook
The High Court has not issued a ruling, and the petition remains pending. Both sides have submitted evidence: the state presented photographs to illustrate concerns about non-vegetarian food preparation along pilgrim routes, while the petitioners have challenged the legal basis and practical impact of the ban. The outcome will determine whether the 500-metre restriction remains in force or is modified to address the owners’ grievances.