The ban on sale of meat for eight days by the BJP-led Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation , as a mark of respect for the Jain community ’s tradition of not harming living beings during Paryushan, has evoked strong reaction from every community.

It is an extreme step to impose a ban on anything as it hits at the root of the democratic ethos of a country as diverse as India, both in terms of religion and social plurality.

But the Supreme Court has upheld such bans in the past. On the contentious issue of imposing vegetarianism during Paryushan, the SC had found nothing wrong in such a decision in its judgment pronounced on March 14, 2008, in ‘Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Others’.

The common grievance of slaughter house operators in Gujarat was that with a view to appease the Jain community, the state government and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had, from time to time, passed resolutions for closure of municipal abattoirs in Ahmedabad during Paryushan, resulting in serious violation of their fundamental right to trade and do business in meat.

Justice Markandey Katju, writing the judgment for the bench headed by Justice H K Sema, had said, “In the present case, we have seen that for a long period, slaughter houses have been closed in Gujarat for a few days out of respect for the sentiments of the Jain community, which has a sizable population in Gujarat and Rajasthan. We see nothing unreasonable in this restriction.

“It is a short restriction for a few days and surely the non-vegetarians can remain vegetarian for this short period. Also, the traders in meat of Ahmedabad will not suffer much merely because their business has been closed down for nine days in a year.

“There is no prohibition to their business for the remaining 356 days in a year. In a multi-cultural country like ours with such diversity, one should not be over-sensitive and over-touchy about a short restriction when it is being done out of respect for the sentiments of a particular section of society.”

As a clincher, Justice Katju had summoned his knowledge of history to reinforce the judgment upholding closure of slaughter houses to force the population to remain vegetarian during a religious festival.

“It has been stated above that the great Emperor Akbar himself used to remain a vegetarian for a few days every week out of respect for the vegetarian section of Indian society and out of respect for his Hindu wife. We too should have similar respect for the sentiments for others, even if they are a minority sect,” the SC had said.

The SC had also upheld the decision of municipal authorities to impose a ban on non-vegetarian food in the integrated religious townships of Haridwar, Rishikesh and Muni ki Reti in its judgment on March 9, 2004 in the case ‘Om Prakash and Others vs State of UP’, saying the decision was in deference to the religious and cultural demands of a large number of residents and pilgrims.

It had said, “Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify complete restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian food items including eggs within the municipal limits of the towns. The high court rightly upheld it to be a reasonable restriction. Trade in all kinds of food items, vegetarian or non-vegetarian, in adjoining towns and villages outside the municipal limits of the three towns remains unrestricted and there is no substantial harm caused to those engaged in such trade,” the SC had said.

The apex court was even more zealous in supporting complete ban on cow slaughter enforced by the legislature by enacting a law to give effect to the constitutional mandate under Article 48.

In West Bengal vs Ashotosh Lahiri [1995 (1) SCC 189], the court had to decide whether it was legally permissible for the state to permit cow slaughter on the occasion of Bakrid despite existence of a law banning cow slaughter.

The Calcutta High Court had struck down the state government's power to grant such an exemption. There was total ban on the slaughter of healthy cows and other animals mentioned in the schedule under Section 2 of the Act. West Bengal appealed in the SC against the HC order.

On a review of earlier decisions of the SC, a three-judge bench concluded that it was a settled legal position that there was no fundamental right of Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of Bakrid.

The court said, “We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the high court that slaughtering of healthy cows on Bakrid is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or, in other words, it is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on Bakrid."

So, the outrage following the ban on meat consumption may be well founded in the democratic character of the country but, legally speaking, the SC had in the past held that such bans, like closure of slaughter houses for nine days, were perfectly constitutional.