Gujarat High Court: Right to Safe Food is a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Gujarat High Court: Right to Safe Food is a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Orders meat sellers and slaughterhouses to comply with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety Regulations

The Gujarat High Court has observed that the right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food must support public health and food safety requirements. It held that the right to safe food was a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice NV Anjaria disposed of a bunch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas filed by meat vendors and associations in Gujarat.

The meat vendors and associations had challenged the closing of their shops by official authorities for not complying with food safety laws, selling meat in unhygienic conditions, or through unlicensed shops.

Background

In a plea seeking a ban on illegal and unlicensed slaughterhouses and meat shops in the state, the court had earlier directed the civic authorities to act against such shops, meat sellers, and slaughterhouses operating in violation of statutory laws.

Following the orders, the authorities had sealed such establishments.

It prompted 21 applicants to move the court with PILs. They prayed for passing an order to open the seal of chicken meat shops in Surat. Certain other pleas were also moved seeking similar directions. These included people engaged in slaughtering animals, including goats and sheep to sell mutton.

Some petitioners prayed that if unstamped meat was sold at some shops, it was the failure of the authorities in discharging their duties. According to them, there was no proper mechanism to take care of the meats, and for running the business of meat-selling.

The petitioners had argued that the closure of meat shops was illegal and amounted to deprivation and curtailment of their right to free trade. It was also submitted that since the month of Ramadan was underway, the State should liberally act to redress the grievance of the applicants and permit them to sell the meat by allowing the shops to open.

However, the court rejected the arguments, stressing compliance with rules and regulations.

The Court maintained that the consumers of any food, including meat and meat products had a right to safe food. The right to food with hygiene was also concomitant with the Indian Constitution. The meat vendors could not insist on doing business if the meat was unstamped or the slaughterhouse was not licensed.

It remarked, "Article 21 would also envelop in it a right to safe food. The right to ensure such safe food is also an obligation on the State authorities, which they discharge by implementing and enforcing the food safety norms and other regulatory measures prescribed in the different statutes. The licensing of the meat shop or the slaughterhouse and ensuring the hygienic operation of such premises and places, go a long way to food safety."

The Court observed that all meat shops and slaughterhouses that were closed by the authorities for failing to comply with the licensing and regulatory norms, food and safety standards, pollution control requirements, and any other legal considerations, including non-observance of hygiene imperatives, would not be allowed to reopen unless they complied with the norms and regulations.

Justice Anjaria stated, "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 Court asserted that the meat sellers/slaughterhouses must comply with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety Regulations, as these laws were enacted for the public good and in the public interest.

It maintained that the laws seeking to fulfil the purpose of insulating the animals from cruelty and cruel acts, pollution, and environmental laws, were limiting factors. These would operate as reasonable restrictions on the right of the meat vendors and slaughterhouse owners to run their businesses.

The court held that meat sellers could also not be permitted to assert unrestricted freedom to do business in meat or to run slaughterhouses on the ground of religious occasions if they were non-compliant with the laws.

Though refusing to intervene in the PILs, the court provided the liberty to meat shop owners, meat vendors, and slaughterhouse owners whose establishments were shut down, to approach the competent authorities by showing they had complied with the laws and regulations. Thereafter, subject to the satisfaction of the official authorities, they would be allowed to reopen the establishments.