It is really a matter of great solace to note that none other than the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest Court in whole of Asia and is also one of the oldest High Courts in India has minced absolutely no words in a recent, refreshing, robust, remarkable and rational judgment titled Shahida vs State Of UP And 3 Others in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 453 of 2022 that was delivered recently on March 28, 2022 that tolerance, respect for all communities is essential to keep country united. The Allahabad High Court observed that, 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. This observation was made by the Court while dismissing a PIL plea filed in connection with the decision of the UP government to ban meat/liquor in Mathura-Vrindavan. It must be mentioned here that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, however, restrained itself from commenting upon the validity of the order of the UP Government (meat/liquor ban in 22 municipal wards after declaring the same as a pilgrimage site) as it noted that the PIL plea had not challenged the Government orders.

To start with, this extremely learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Srivastava for a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Pritinker Diwaker and himself sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the introductory para that:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India styled as Public Interest Litigation has been instituted for consideration of the representation dated 17.1.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) addressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura (respondent No. 2 herein) to grant leave to the persons / non vegetarians of such 22 Wards of Mathura Vrindawan Nagar Nigam, Mathura notified as Holy Place of Pilgrimage under Notification dated 10.9.2021 issued by the Addl.

Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and consequently, notification imposing complete ban on running meat, fish, egg shops etc., and suspending the licence of shops, non veg hotels etc., with immediate effect and for permitting easy transportation of such restricted materials from outside for marriage and other ceremonial functions. It is also prayed that the local police may not harass such persons in transporting the restricted materials from outside into such 22 notified Wards.

Simply put, the Division Bench then observes in the next para that:
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is a permanent resident of Mewati Mohalla, Matiya Gate, Govind Nagar, District Mathura and is a social worker elected as Parshad Ward No. 38, Matiya Gate, District Mathura. The State Government under Notification dated 10.9.2021 has notified 22 Wards of Mathura Vrindawan Nagar Nigam as Holy Place of Pilgrimage. A consequential order dated 11.9.2021 has been passed by the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura whereunder the registration of the shops selling meat and non vegetarian restaurants have been suspended with immediate effect. It is contended that on account of such restrictions imposed, the non vegetarian persons residing in the Wards so notified are being deprived of their choice of meals and also from carrying on their business and livelihood.

Furthermore, the Division Bench then also points out in the next para that:
It is further argued that the restriction imposed is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The authorities are also not permitting the transportation of the restricted materials from other Wards where there is no such restriction for personal consumption or consumption in marriages and other ceremonial functions which restriction is most arbitrary and cannot be permitted. The representation on behalf of the residents of the Wards seeking leave for easy transportation of the restricted item have not been considered and as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance which in fact is the grievance of the majority of the population of the Wards declared as Holy Place of Pilgrimage.

As against what is stated above, the Division Bench then while referring to the other side who is opposing the PIL envisages in the next para of this notable judgment that:
Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri A. K. Goyal, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, in opposition to the Writ (PIL), submits that Mathura and Vrindawan are prominent places having great historical and religious importance being the birth place and Kreeda Sthal of Lord Krishna. Lacs and lacs of devotees from India and abroad visit Mathura-Vrindawan for Holy Darshan, blessing and virtuous upliftment.

Several places of Mathura and Vrindawan are of religious and tourism importance. The State Government with a view to maintain the historical, religious, tourism importance and above all the sanctity of the Holy places issued a Notification dated 10.9.2021 declaring 22 Wards of Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindawan to be Holy Place of Pilgrimage. The State Government vide Government Order dated 17.9.2021 restricted the sale / purchase of meat, liquor and eggs in the aforesaid 22 Wards of Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindawan. In other Wards, there exists no such restriction. The petitioner has not challenged the Notification dated 10.9.2021 issued by the State Government nor the Government Order dated 17.9.2021 imposing restriction on sale / of meat, eggs and liquor etc.

What’s more, the Division Bench then also goes further to state in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that:
It is further submitted that no fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India can be said to have been infringed by imposing reasonable restrictions on 22 Wards only. Similar reasonable restrictions in respect of Rishikesh Municipality has been upheld in the case of Darshan Kumar and others versus The State of U.P. and another (AIR 1997 Alld 209) which decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash and others versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 402. It is accordingly submitted that the relief claimed in the Writ (PIL) is not tenable and the Writ (PIL) is liable to be dismissed.

Needless to say, the Division Bench then mentions in the next para of this learned judgment that:
We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

Quite significantly, the Division Bench then hastens to add in the next para of this brilliant judgment that:
From a perusal of the averments made in the petition and the relief claimed therein, it is apparent that the Notification dated 10.9.2021 and the Government Order 17.9.2021 issued by the State Government have not been impugned in the writ petition. In the absence of any challenge to the above Notification and the Government Order, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the same.

This Court, therefore, does not deem it appropriate to dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be with regard to the harassment being faced by the non vegetarian residents of the 22 Wards in transportation of such restricted materials from outside such restricted Wards into the restricted wards for private consumption, for marriage and other ceremonial purposes.

Most significantly and also most remarkably, the Bench then minces just no words to decisively hold in the next para of this learned judgment that:
The Notification dated 10.9.2021 merely declares 22 Wards of the Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindawan to be Holy Place of Pilgrimage. The petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance against the same. We also do not find any clear violation of any Constitutional provision by the said Notification. It is the prerogative of the Government to declare any place as Holy Place of Pilgrimage.

Mere declaration of any particular place as Holy Place of Pilgrimage does not mean that any restriction has been imposed and the said act is illegal. We are of the opinion that it is the privilege of the State to do so. 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.

For the sake of clarity, the Division Bench then also clarifies in the next para that:
The Government Order dated 17.9.2021 issued by the State Government on the other hand imposes a restriction upon the sale / purchase of meat, liquor and eggs in the 22 Wards of the Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindawan. This restriction has been imposed only with respect to 22 Wards and is not applicable to other Wards of the city. Thus, there is no complete ban. The allegation of the petitioner that State Authorities are harassing such consumers of the restricted material (meat, liquor and eggs) in transportation of the same is merely a bald and sweeping statement. No material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation.

Truth be told, the Division Bench then points out in the next para that:
Though in the writ petition certain grounds have been taken by the petitioner in relation to violation of the fundamental rights and even violation has been pointed out, but surprisingly no relief has been prayed for in the writ petition.

As a corollary, the Division Bench then stipulates that:
In view of the above, in absence of any challenge to the Notification dated 10.9.2021 or to the Government Order dated 17.9.2021, we deem it appropriate not to comment upon their validity or otherwise.

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in the final para of this extremely commendable judgment that:
We are not inclined to entertain this writ (PIL). It is accordingly dismissed.

All said and done, there can be no gainsaying that what the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Srivastava have laid down in this learned judgment so explicitly, elegantly and eloquently must be implemented in letter and spirit. It is the bounden duty of each and every citizen of India to imbibe what forms the real essence of this judgment as laid down in this judgment itself that, 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. There is definitely no reason not to adhere what the Allahabad High Court has laid down in this balanced judgment. If we all do so in our own lives respectively, it is our nation which will stand to gain the most and become more peaceful, more prosperous and more powerful. No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh