A division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria and Niral R. Mehta of Gujarat High Court recently held that the right to consume safe and hygienic food is a fundamental aspect of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court, while denying relief to illegal meat shops, emphasized that it is the responsibility of the State authorities to ensure the safety of food, and they fulfill this duty by implementing and enforcing the food safety regulations and other statutory measures.
Brief Facts:
The issue that arose in the present proceedings was about achieving equilibrium between the right of meat vendors to do business on one hand, and the concerns for food safety and public health, on the other. The Petitioners prayed to direct the respondents to implement the order and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 309 of 2003, applying the statutory provisions pragmatically, simultaneously permitting the members of the applicant to continue their business of selling the meat.
The case sought to be advanced by the Petitioners was that they are small meat vendors selling poultry meat and are not slaughterhouses stricto sensu. It was submitted on behalf of them that the definition of 'slaughterhouse', which means killing of food animals for human consumption, takes their small shops within the sweep of the 'slaughterhouse' as the poultry is treated as animal used for human consumption. What is sought to be submitted was that the birds-the poultries and chicken may not be treated as 'animals'.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioners contended that directions and guidelines of the Supreme Court in relation to the slaughter of animals, cruelty to them, etc. have not been obeyed and the requisite no objection certifications from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board required under the environmental laws as well as the clearances from the statutory bodies and the local-self governments are not obtained. Large numbers of meat shops and slaughterhouses in the entire State are operated in violation of the relevant laws and statutory prescriptions, including in contravention of the Food Safety Standard Laws and Regulations.
It was also the case of the Petitioners that they have been in the business of poultry, chicken, and meat for more than 35 years, that their shops are situated within the limits of the municipal Corporation, and that the applicants have been holding the licenses issued by the Trade and Health Department, which are renewed from time to time by the competent authority of the Corporation.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that the shops of the Petitioners were closed as they had not complied with the norms of applicable laws. The leading Public Interest Petition is directed against every aspect of compliance of the Foods Safety Standards Act, the Foods Safety Regulations, pollution laws as well as food and animal cruelty-related laws. In view of this Court, permission to reopen the meat shops cannot be granted even though the shop owners remain non-compliant with the laws. While the indirect prayer before the Court is to relax the norms, such a course is impossible in law. There is no challenge to any of the provisions of the Acts or Regulations.
Further, the Court observed that the Petitioners can also not be permitted to assert unrestricted freedom to do business in meat or to run slaughterhouses on the ground of religious occasions when they are otherwise non-compliant with the norms in law. The applicants cannot draw for them such unrestricted right to do business on the canvass.
While viewing the above issue from the perspective of consumers of any food, including meat and meat products, this Court was of the opinion that 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 the food itself is.
The decision of the Court:
The Gujarat High Court, dismissing the petition, denied the permission to Petitioners to reopen their meat shops if they are still not in compliance of the prescribed norms.
Case Title: Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai vs Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani
Coram: Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria and Niral R. Mehta
Case no.: WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 133 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: MR PERCY KAVINA, SR. ADVOCATE
Advocate for the Respondent: MS MANISHA L SHAH
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
