Right To Consume Hygienic Food Is A Facet Of RTL: Gujarat HC Refuses To Grant Relief To Illegal Meat Shops

The Gujarat High Court recently stated that the right to consume safe and hygienic food is a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court made the observation while refusing to grant relief to illegal meat shops.

According to a division bench comprised of Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Niral Mehta, the duty to ensure safe food is an obligation on the State authorities, which they discharge by implementing and enforcing the food safety norms and other regulatory measures prescribed in the various statutes.

“For the consumers of any food including the meat and meat products, there is a right to have safe food. The right to food with hygiene is also concomitant to Article 21 of the Constitution, as the right to food itself is. Article 21 would also envelope in it a right to safe food. This would represent the other side of the coin when the meat vendors would insist for doing business even the meat is unstamped meat or that the slaughter house is not licensed or the norms compliant,”the bench noted.

As a result, the bench denied relief in a bunch of applications filed by meat and chicken shop owners seeking permission to reopen their businesses, which they claimed had been closed by the civic authorities.

The shops were closed after the High Court issued an order in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that they were in violation of various mandatory norms.

The plea sought implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision as well as the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which require animals to be slaughtered only in licensed slaughterhouses.

The PIL stated that thousands of shops across Gujarat were selling ‘unstamped’ meat, which meant meat obtained not from slaughterhouses but only by killing animals in local shops.

The shop owners, on the other hand, contended that they have the right to run their own businesses and that their profession must be protected.

The bench stated in its decision that the right to do business is not an absolute right.

“Right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right, but not a carte blanche. The laws are enacted and operate in public good and public interest. The freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be subserving to public health and food safety requirements,” the division bench stated.

The Court emphasized that the applicant shop owners cannot claim unrestricted freedom to do business in meat or run slaughterhouses on the basis of religious occasion when they are otherwise in violation of legal norms.

“The applicants cannot draw for them such unrestricted right to do the business on the canvass. A bare ground may not be permitted to be advanced to justify to seek laxity in the food safety or pollution norms. The activity of running unlicensed slaughter houses and selling unstamped meat could not be approved or permitted without the stakeholders complying the applicable laws,” the bench added.

It was also mentioned that the applicants had not challenged any of the Acts or Regulations on which action was taken against them.

The provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety Regulations imposing restrictions on meat shops to maintain hygiene and other standards, according to the Court, are reasonable restrictions on the right of meat vendors and slaughter house owners to run their businesses.

Furthermore, it was noted that no slaughterhouses or meat shops were ordered to close, and those that complied with the standards were allowed to continue operating.

“Even the shops and premises owners who are given the show cause notice or whose shops are ordered to be closed, could meet with the requirements of law and after fulfilling the norms, may approach the competent authority seeking to reopen their business premises or shops,” the bench remarked.