A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale) declined to interfere with an interim order of the Gujarat High Court Division Bench that reinstated a prohibition on the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food within a specified 500-meter radius of the Somnath Temple. The Apex Court held that a judicial balance must be maintained between local regulatory restrictions near prominent religious sites and commercial interests during the pendency of a constitutional challenge. The Court directed the Gujarat High Court to hear and decide the main appeal expeditiously within two months.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice P.B. Varale
Date of Decision: November 6, 2026
Subject Area: Constitutional Law (Articles 19(1)(g), 21, 25 & 26) | Local Public Order & Religious Sentiments | Regulatory Notifications under District Magistrate Powers | Interim Injunction Standards & Appellate Deference
Core Legal Principles & Observations
1. Maintenance of Judicial Balance at the Interim Stage
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed the appellate principle that Apex Courts should exercise restraint and refrain from altering interim orders of High Courts unless there is a grave jurisdictional error.
- At an interim stage, maintaining a status quo balance between local regulatory notifications protecting public order/sentiment and individual trade rights under Article 19(1)(g) is preferred while the underlying constitutional questions are tried on merits.
2. Interplay Between Personal Choice (Art 19/21) and Freedom of Religion (Art 25/26)
- The petitioners argued that dietary preferences represent an intrinsic facet of personal liberty and trade under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, citing Bijoe Emmanuel for constitutional tolerance.
- The State contended that reasonable spatial restrictions (such as a 500-meter corridor around sacred shrines) protect religious sentiments and maintain local peace. The Supreme Court noted that forthcoming Constitutional Bench pronouncements on Article 25 will provide substantive clarity on balancing religious freedoms with individual rights.
3. Direction for Expedited High Court Adjudication
- Recognizing that commercial enterprise and livelihood issues require timely resolution, the Supreme Court requested the Gujarat High Court Division Bench to dispose of the pending appeal within a fixed timeframe of two months.
Key Quotes from the Bench
“We need to maintain a balance. We don’t say anything at this stage… We request the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of 2 months.”
“Hopefully our judgment on Article 25 will come soon. That will have a substantive bearing on this.”
— Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice P.B. Varale