The Somnath non-veg food ban stays in force for now, after the Supreme Court declined interim relief to restaurant owners and asked the Gujarat High Court to decide the pending appeals within two months.
New Delhi: Restaurant owners near the Somnath temple will have to wait for the Gujarat High Court. On Friday, November 6, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to stay the High Court’s interim order that keeps in force a ban on non-vegetarian food within 500 metres of the temple, and requested the High Court to dispose of the pending appeals preferably within two months [M/s Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan v. State of Gujarat and Others].
The order was passed by a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale on a special leave petition filed by the owner of a restaurant near the temple.
The hearing
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the petitioner, argued that the single judge had rightly held that the Gujarat Police Act does not empower authorities to impose a permanent ban. He submitted that dietary habits cannot be regulated by law and that people cannot be forced to eat or not eat particular food.
Justice Sundresh asked about the urgency for interim relief. Ahmadi answered that the festive season was the restaurants’ busiest period:
“This is during Diwali, this is bread and butter and you are killing an enterprise… If someone is eating non-vegetarian food within closed precincts, what is wrong?”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, supported the ban and submitted that non-vegetarian food could be served outside the restricted area.
No interference at this stage
After brief arguments, the bench declined to interfere at the interim stage and asked the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the appeals within two months. It did not rule on the validity of the notification.
Before the hearing concluded, Justice Sundresh orally remarked that a balanced approach may be needed:
“Probably, they need to take a middle path, neither here nor there. We don’t want to say anything.”
After passing the order, he also observed orally that the pending judgment of the nine-judge bench on the interpretation of Article 25, in the Sabarimala reference, would have a substantial bearing on such issues.
How the ban reached the Supreme Court
The District Magistrate of Gir Somnath issued a notification on August 10 under Section 33(1)(w)(ii) and Section 33(6) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. It prohibits the preparation, sale and storage of non-vegetarian food and eggs on specified routes and areas at Prabhas Patan, Taluka Veraval, covering all areas within 500 metres of the temple.
Eatery owners, including the petitioner Aakib Aminbhai Khan, challenged the notification, saying they had lawfully run vegetarian and non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants in the area for 35 to 40 years.
On October 30, a single judge of the High Court quashed the notification as ultra vires Article 19(1)(g), holding that it violated the fundamental right to carry on trade. The same day, a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai stayed that ruling and directed that the notification remain in force until the appeals are heard, noting that large numbers of devotees were expected during Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year.
ALSO READ: Gujarat High Court Keeps Somnath Non-Veg Food Ban In Force, Stays Single-Judge Ruling
Why the order matters
The dispute sets the right to carry on a trade under Article 19(1)(g) against the State’s power to regulate activity around a major place of worship. The eateries say the police law permits only temporary measures and cannot be used for a standing prohibition; the State says the restriction is limited to a defined area around the temple and does not stop the sale of non-vegetarian food elsewhere.
By refusing a stay but fixing a two-month window, the Supreme Court has left the merits to the High Court’s Division Bench while signalling that the matter should not linger. The oral remarks were not part of any ruling, and the Court expressed no view on which side is right.
Case Title: M/s Taj Restaurant Owner Aakib Aminbhai Khan v. State of Gujarat and Others [SLP(C) No. 38879 of 2026]
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State of Gujarat