Somnath non-veg food ban continues: What Gujarat Govt says, why restaurants opposed it and court's latest order

The Gujarat High Court’s division bench paused a single-judge ruling that had removed restrictions on non-vegetarian food near Somnath temple. This means the district collector’s notification remains effective while the larger legal dispute continues. The bench acted after an urgent appeal by the Gujarat government.

The notification prohibits preparing, storing and selling non-vegetarian food within a 500-metre radius of the temple. It also covers six identified roads connecting important religious destinations along the Somnath pilgrimage circuit. These rules apply to businesses operating in the specified areas.

The restrictions are temporary in the sense that the court has not finally decided their legality. The division bench will hear the matter next on December 26. Until it gives further directions, hotels, restaurants and other sellers must follow the notification, despite the single judge’s earlier decision to set it aside.

In general, a district collector’s notification is a formal administrative order issued by the collector, the senior district official, to regulate conduct within specified areas. It can identify what is restricted, where the restriction applies and when it takes effect. In this case, the notification became the legal basis for the Somnath food restrictions.

The notification, dated August 10, 2026, prohibits the preparation, storage and sale of non-vegetarian food within 500 metres of Somnath temple. It also applies to six specifically identified roads connecting important religious destinations. Those roads form part of the Somnath pilgrimage circuit.

The notification remains in force for now because the division bench stayed the single judge’s decision that had cancelled it. The court has not yet finally ruled on whether the restrictions are lawful. The next hearing is scheduled for December 26.

The restrictions cover a defined area rather than the entire district or town. Their central zone is a 500-metre radius around the Somnath temple. Within that zone, the notification prohibits preparing, storing and selling non-vegetarian food.

The order also extends beyond the circular temple zone. It identifies six roads connecting important religious destinations in the area. These roads are part of the Somnath pilgrimage circuit, so the restrictions apply along them as well. The article does not give the roads’ names or lengths.

This scope matters because businesses near the temple and along the pilgrimage routes are affected. The division bench’s stay keeps both parts of the restriction operative for now. The court will consider the dispute again on December 26, when the parties can continue arguing about the order’s legality.

Hotel and restaurant owners challenged the restrictions because they said the rules affected their fundamental right to carry on a lawful business. They also argued that the restrictions threatened their ability to earn a livelihood. Their petitions focused on the practical effect of limiting what their establishments could prepare, store and sell.

The challenge targeted the collector’s notification. It covered businesses near Somnath temple and along designated pilgrimage routes. In those areas, the notification prohibited preparing, storing and selling non-vegetarian food. The owners asked the High Court to remove those restrictions, and Justice Nisha Thakore initially allowed their petitions.

The state then appealed to the division bench. That bench stayed the single judge’s order, so the owners’ requested relief is not currently operating. The legal question remains unresolved, with the next hearing scheduled for December 26.

While the division bench’s stay remains in effect, the Somnath restrictions continue to operate. Hotels, restaurants and other businesses within the specified areas cannot prepare, store or sell non-vegetarian food. The rule applies around the temple and along the identified pilgrimage-route roads.

The key mechanism is the court’s stay. A single judge had set aside the collector’s notification after allowing petitions from hotel and restaurant owners. The Gujarat government urgently appealed that decision. The division bench then stayed the single judge’s order, keeping the notification in force for now.

This is not a final decision on the ban’s legality. It is an interim position until the division bench gives further directions. The matter is scheduled for hearing on December 26. Until then, businesses must follow the notification despite the earlier single-judge ruling.

The constitutional freedom discussed here protects a person’s ability to carry on a lawful business and earn a livelihood. Hotel and restaurant owners relied on that protection when challenging the Somnath restrictions. They argued that the notification interfered with their established commercial activity.

The government’s position is that the freedom is not unlimited in location or subject. It argued that people cannot demand the right to conduct every form of commercial activity at every place, regardless of that place’s religious, historical or cultural significance. The state used Somnath’s special status to defend the restrictions.

The division bench has not finally resolved this balance. Its stay means the notification continues while the court considers the dispute. The next hearing will determine whether the parties’ arguments receive further judicial consideration and whether the restrictions remain legally sustainable.

The article says Somnath has extraordinary spiritual importance for millions of Hindus. It also describes the area through its religious destinations and pilgrimage circuit. These details explain why the government distinguishes Somnath from an ordinary commercial town when defending location-based restrictions.

The government argued that the area’s religious, historical and cultural significance can justify regulating commercial activity there. Its submission was not that all businesses are generally prohibited. Instead, it defended specific limits on preparing, storing and selling non-vegetarian food near the temple and along six pilgrimage roads.

The article does not provide a history of Somnath or explain particular historical events connected with it. Therefore, the stated basis for its special status is its importance to millions of Hindus and the presence of important religious destinations. The court will continue examining the legal dispute on December 26.