Somnath Temple non-veg food ban: Why Supreme Court refused to lift restrictions and what the judges said

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s interim order keeping restrictions on non-vegetarian food near Somnath Temple in force. The bench said a balance needed to be maintained. This means restaurant owners have not received immediate relief, but the court has also not finally upheld the ban.

The case was brought by six restaurant owners. They argued that the restrictions damaged their businesses and threatened workers’ livelihoods. The restrictions cover the preparation, sale and storage of meat, fish and eggs in specified areas around the temple. The government defended them by pointing to Somnath’s religious significance.

The Supreme Court asked the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending appeals preferably within two months. The matter is scheduled there on 25 November 2026. Until that decision, the restrictions remain in force, and affected restaurants cannot resume the prohibited activities in notified areas.

The notification prohibits three activities involving non-vegetarian food: preparation, sale and storage. It specifically includes meat, fish and eggs. The rule applies only within specified areas around Somnath Temple, rather than across the entire district. This location-based approach is central to the dispute.

The affected businesses include restaurants, hotels, shops and roadside stalls. The article says some restaurants had operated in the area for 35 to 40 years. Their owners argued that the notification affected lawful businesses and threatened the livelihoods of people employed there. The government argued that non-vegetarian food could still be sold outside the restricted zones.

For now, businesses inside the notified areas cannot prepare, sell or store the covered food. The Supreme Court left that arrangement untouched while the Gujarat High Court considers the appeals. The restrictions began with a notification issued by the Gir Somnath District Magistrate on 10 August 2026.

The notified area includes places within 500 metres of Somnath Temple. It also covers designated routes in Prabhas Patan. These are the geographic limits stated in the article. The restrictions therefore target particular areas connected with the temple, rather than every restaurant or food business in the wider region.

The Gir Somnath District Magistrate’s notification identifies the locations where preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food are prohibited. Restaurants, hotels, shops and roadside stalls operating in those locations are covered. The government told the Supreme Court that businesses could continue selling non-vegetarian food outside the restricted areas.

The 500-metre limit and the specified routes are important because they define who is directly affected. Until the Gujarat High Court decides the pending appeals, businesses inside those boundaries must follow the restrictions. The High Court hearing is scheduled for 25 November 2026, after the Supreme Court asked it to proceed preferably within two months.

On October 30, a Gujarat High Court single-judge bench set aside the notification. It held that the Gir Somnath administration had gone beyond the powers available under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. The judge also found that the restrictions affected restaurant owners’ fundamental right to carry on a trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Gujarat government challenged that decision before a division bench. The division bench stayed the single judge’s order. Because the order that cancelled the notification was put on hold, the original restrictions came back into force. This is a temporary procedural arrangement, not a final determination of the dispute.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the division bench’s interim arrangement. It asked the High Court to decide the pending appeals preferably within two months. Until then, the restrictions apply in the notified areas, while the legal questions about administrative power and trade rights remain open.

An interim order is a temporary court direction that operates while the main dispute remains unresolved. Here, the Gujarat High Court’s division bench stayed the single judge’s decision that had cancelled the notification. That stay brought the restrictions back into force during the appeal process.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with this temporary arrangement. It did not examine the entire legal question and did not declare that the notification definitely complies with the Constitution or the Gujarat Police Act. The restaurant owners therefore did not win immediate relief, but the government did not receive a final ruling validating the ban either.

The Gujarat High Court must still decide the pending appeals. The Supreme Court asked it to do so preferably within two months, with the matter scheduled for 25 November 2026. Until that hearing and a further decision, the restrictions remain operative in the notified areas.

Until the Gujarat High Court decides the case, restaurants, hotels, shops and roadside stalls in the notified areas must follow the restrictions. They cannot prepare, sell or store non-vegetarian food covered by the notification. This directly affects businesses that depend on those sales and customers seeking meat, fish or eggs near the temple.

The restaurant owners told the Supreme Court that the rules were affecting their businesses and livelihoods. They also said some establishments had operated there for 35 to 40 years. The government responded that restaurants could continue selling non-vegetarian food outside the restricted areas, giving customers and businesses an alternative location.

The restrictions therefore remain a practical burden even though their legality is unsettled. Restaurant owners cannot resume the prohibited activities in notified areas yet. The High Court is scheduled to consider the matter on 25 November 2026, after being asked to decide the pending appeals preferably within two months.

Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to carry on a lawful trade, and the single judge said the notification affected that right. The restaurant owners rely on this protection because the restrictions prevent their establishments from preparing, selling and storing certain foods. They also say the rules threaten workers’ livelihoods and question the need to regulate food choices.

The government relies on the religious significance of Somnath Temple. It says businesses can continue selling non-vegetarian food outside the restricted areas. The Supreme Court described the task as maintaining a balance, leaving the restrictions in place without finally deciding whether they are lawful.

The Gujarat High Court must now examine the competing claims in the pending appeals. The outcome could determine whether the notification exceeded statutory powers or can remain in force in the specified areas. Until then, the existing restrictions apply, and the constitutional question remains open.