A City in Gujarat Becomes World’s First to Ban Non-Vegetarian Food

Should Governments Control Personal Choices and Freedoms?

Newsreel Asia Insight #281
July 14, 2024

In Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district, Palitana city has implemented a ban on non-vegetarian food, including the sale, consumption and slaughter of meat. This policy, which enforces the dietary laws of the Jain community across its entire population, clearly constitutes government overreach. It not only imposes a specific dietary preference but also extends government powers into areas of personal choice and freedom, areas typically considered sacrosanct under democratic principles.

Globally, no other city has completely outlawed non-vegetarian food. While many cities and regions promote vegetarianism or veganism and may establish vegetarian-only zones, they usually stop short of legal prohibitions on the sale, consumption or preparation of meat. This is because most regions recognise the importance of personal dietary choice, focusing their laws and regulations on food safety and ethical standards rather than imposing outright bans.

In Palitana, the blanket ban on non-vegetarian food followed a protest by about 200 Jain monks who demanded the closure of about 250 butcher shops in the city, as reported by The Times of India on July 12.

The ban appears as an overextension of authority, effectively imposing the religious values of a small Jain minority on everyone else. This raises serious concerns about the precedent it sets, as dietary choices are deeply personal and governed by a variety of cultural, health and ethical factors. Such a move could potentially invite legal challenges based on discrimination or violations of personal freedoms.

According to the 2021 Census, Jains constitute only 2.6% of the city’s population, while Hindus make up over 75%, some of whom may be non-vegetarian. Muslims account for nearly 22%, with the majority likely being non-vegetarian. Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists also reside there, albeit in smaller numbers. Therefore, this ban affects the majority of the population.

This is particularly contentious under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects personal liberty, including the right to freedom of choice in matters of personal consumption. The Supreme Court of India reinforced this perspective in the landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognised privacy as a fundamental right. This case, arising from concerns over the Aadhaar biometric program, affirmed that privacy, including bodily integrity and personal autonomy, is protected under the right to life and personal liberty provisions of the Constitution.

The imposition of Jain dietary laws in Palitana, given the state’s diverse religious and cultural practices, can be seen as a cultural imposition, potentially creating resentment and social division.

Moreover, the ban significantly impacts those whose livelihoods depend on the meat industry, raising questions about the government’s duty to protect its citizens’ rights to occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Further, Palitana is a significant pilgrimage and tourist site. The ban on non-vegetarian food could affect tourism, as potential visitors who are non-vegetarians might choose other destinations, impacting the local economy beyond just the meat-selling businesses.

The ban’s potential impact on tourism also cannot be overlooked. As a significant pilgrimage and tourist site, Palitana might see a decline in visitor numbers, especially among those who are non-vegetarians, further affecting the local economy.

The enforcement of such a sweeping ban also raises questions about selective regulation and the consistency of policy application. A fairer approach might have been to consider alternatives that respect both Jain sentiments and the rights of non-Jain residents. Possible measures could include zoning laws for the sale and consumption of meat or regulations that manage the display of non-vegetarian food to minimise public exposure, rather than outright bans.

Lastly, the nutritional implications of a strict vegetarian diet cannot be ignored. While vegetarianism has its benefits, ensuring a nutritionally complete diet requires access to a variety of protein sources and potentially, supplements like Vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids, which are primarily found in animal products. For many, especially in diverse economic contexts, meeting these nutritional needs might not be feasible without animal-derived foods.