Gujarat HC rules food safety over right to sell meat
text_fields
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has ruled that food safety standards take precedence over the right to sell meat, even if it is a fundamental right. The decision came in response to applications from meat vendors and associations who had their establishments closed for selling unstamped meat or operating without a license.
The court found that the right to trade in meat products had to give way to food safety standards and norms, which are essential to protecting the public's health.
The case arose from a public interest litigation seeking a ban on illegal and unlicensed slaughterhouses and meat shops. The court called on civic body authorities to take action against those who violate statutory laws by selling meat illegally. As a result of these actions, several vendors, meat shop associations, and owners moved to join the PIL as a party.
During the submissions, the aggrieved parties argued that the requirement to sell stamped meat was impractical, as the state had only three operational slaughterhouses out of eight authorized ones. They also claimed that the state had not fulfilled its duty to construct slaughterhouses and dedicated meat markets to regulate their businesses. The vendors highlighted that they had repeatedly made representations to the state government but to no avail.
Senior advocate Percy Kavina, representing the aggrieved meat shop owners/vendors, argued that complying with such regulations was impractical and dissonant with the ground reality. He claimed that the state government could not implement the law with strictness and rigour, given the lack of facilities at authorized slaughterhouses. Kavina also pointed out that the Jamalpur slaughterhouse lacked basic amenities such as water, waste disposal, and structure repair.
In its ruling, the bench of Justices N V Anjaria and Niral Mehta held that the right to trade in meat and meat products had to give way to food safety standards and norms. The court observed that while consumers have a right to food, there must also be a right to safe food. The decision highlights the importance of prioritizing food safety to protect public health and well-being.