"India is a Country of great diversity. It is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our Country united to have tolerance and respect for all communities and sects. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character and which caters to all communities, sects lingual and ethnic groups etc., in the Country. It is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups etc., in the Country."[1]

It is pleasing to the mind to go through the above lines and also positive to get to understand that we still have people in authoritative positions who think this way. These above-mentioned lines were laid down by a division bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava. This came up in a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner to claim prevention of harassment of persons transporting meat.

The Court stated that such a restriction imposed on transportation of meat is violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 19(1)(g) states, “to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business” and Article 21 states, “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”

A combined reading of both the provisions clearly depicts a scenario where one has the freedom of occupation and personal liberty. In view of the same, the Court’s opinion in dismissing the PIL also seems justified. Although the restriction was sought to be imposed only upon 22 wards, the adverse effect on fundamental rights of the non-vegetarian residents of those wards was evident. Restriction in transportation of meat for consumption has more to do with one’s liberty being violated rather that a concern for religion. In this case, the State argued that restriction in meat transportation to the 22 wards will enable in maintaining the sanctity of the religious heritage of Mathura and Vrindavan. At this point, it is necessary to note that in July, 2021, a similar plea was made with regards to Haridwar and the Court stated as follows[2]:

"The question is whether a citizen has the right to decide his own diet or whether that will be decided by the state…. Democracy means the protection of minorities.  A civilisation is judged only by the way it treats its minorities and a ban like Haridwar's questions the extent to which the state can determine a citizen's options."

In the 1958 case of Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar[3], the Apex Court partially allowed slaughter of bulls and buffalos who were no longer needed for economic or agricultural purposes because the slaughter of bovines was that these animals were a staple food and a source of protein for a large number of people.[4] Hence, meat is not a matter of religion, it is matter of lifestyle, liberty and at times, necessity.