On Tuesday, April 11, the Gujarat High Court noted that the right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right but it is not carte blanche as it ruled that the rights of meat traders and vendors even if fundamental, have to yield to public safety and hygiene.
A division bench comprising Justices NV Anjaria and Niral Mehta denied relief to illegal meat shops. The owners of the meat shops sealed by the civic authorities for not complying with mandatory norms and on the grounds of selling meat in unhygienic conditions sought permission to continue the business.
According to a division bench of Justices, NV Anjaria and Niral Mehta, the State authorities have a responsibility to guarantee that food is safe, which they do by implementing the food safety standards and other regulatory measures outlined in the various statutes into practice.
There is a right to food safety for consumers of all foods, including meat and meat products. Together with the right to the food itself, Article 21 of the Constitution also guarantees the right to hygienic food. A right to safe food is envisaged under Article 21 as well. When meat dealers persist in conducting business even when the meat is unstamped or the slaughterhouse is not licensed or in compliance with regulations, this would represent the flip side of the coin, the bench noted.
According to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition, which claimed that the businesses were operating in breach of a number of mandatory regulations, the High Court issued an order closing the shops.
The PIL petition demanded that the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’s requirements that only licensed slaughterhouses be permitted to conduct animal slaughter be put into effect. It was argued in the PIL that thousands of meat shops were selling unstamped meat which clearly indicated that the meat was not procured from slaughterhouses but was procured by killing animals in the local shops.
While the shop owners invoked the fundamental right to freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the High Court bench stated that the Right to freedom of trade may be a fundamental right, but not carte blanche.
“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 the larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be sub-serving to public health and food safety requirements,” the bench noted.
Furthermore, they emphasized that since Ramzan is underway, the State should liberally intervene to allay their complaints and approve the opening of the shops, allowing them to sell the meat.
To this, the court outlined that the meat shop owners who were otherwise flouting the norms of the law, cannot be allowed to assert unrestricted freedom to run their shops or slaughterhouses.
“The applicants cannot draw for them a such unrestricted right to do the business on the canvass. A bare ground may not be permitted to be advanced to justify seeking laxity in food safety or pollution norms. The activity of running unlicensed slaughterhouses and selling unstamped meat could not be approved or permitted without the stakeholders complying with the applicable laws,” the bench stated.
It further stated that the petitioners had not disputed any of the Acts’ or Regulations’ provisions on the grounds of which action had been taken against them.
According to the Court, the provisions of the 2006 Food Safety and Standards Act and the Food Safety Regulations requiring meat shops to uphold sanitation and other requirements are legitimate constraints on the owners’ ability to operate their businesses.
Furthermore, it was said that not all slaughterhouses and meat shops were required to close, and those that complied with the rules were allowed to continue operating.
