A restriction on preparing, storing and selling non-vegetarian food near Somnath Temple was struck down and restored within hours on October 30, 2026. Gujarat High Court Justice Nisha M Thakore set aside the district magistrate's notification around 3 pm. By about 6.45 pm, a division bench had stayed her ruling, putting the non-vegetarian food restrictions back in force.

The reversal affects restaurant owners in Prabhas Patan, Veraval, who say the ban threatens their livelihoods, while the state maintains the measures protect pilgrimage routes around one of Hinduism's twelve Jyotirlinga shrines. Whether the district magistrate had the authority to impose this prohibition remains unresolved.

What the Gujarat High Court Ruled on Somnath Temple Food Sales

Six restaurant owners challenged the final notification issued by the Gir Somnath district magistrate on August 10, 2026. On October 30, Justice Thakore allowed their petition, finding that the power to regulate businesses did not justify banning the activity outright, according to The Indian Express.

The owners said their establishments served meat, fish and other non-vegetarian dishes to local residents and visitors. They argued that the decision threatened longstanding businesses and employees' livelihoods. Lawyer Asarar L Mansuri challenged the use of Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, to support the ban near Somnath Temple.

The State's Same-Evening Appeal

The state requested a temporary stay, but Justice Thakore refused. It then filed an urgent Letters Patent Appeal. The Gujarat High Court division bench assembled around 5.30 pm, before the written single-judge judgment was available. Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S Desai stayed her ruling. Their October 30 court order directed that the notification remain effective until the returnable date, while the single-judge ruling would remain stayed until further orders. The court did not finally decide whether the ban was lawful.

The judges considered submissions from both sides and the expected increase in devotees during Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year. They issued notice returnable on November 25, 2026, and directed the appeal to be listed with a related petition pending since 2018.

Is Non Veg Banned in Gujarat? What the Notification Covers

The August 10 notification prohibits preparation, sale and storage of meat, fish and other non-vegetarian dishes in designated areas. Its six numbered route descriptions cover stretches near Bhalka Temple, Bhidiya, Shankh and Safari circles, Prajapati Dharamshala, Gita Mandir and Hamirji Circle. A seventh category covers areas within 500 metres of Somnath Temple, as detailed by LiveLaw.

The non-vegetarian food restrictions apply to stalls, shops, restaurants and hotels in the notified zone. A preliminary notification issued on July 10 invited public objections before the final August 10 decision. For anyone asking, "is non veg banned in Gujarat?", the answer is no: these are local restrictions, not a statewide ban or an express blanket ban on personal consumption.

Why the Government Defended the Ban

Government Pleader G H Virk argued before the single judge that the policy would protect devotees using pilgrimage routes. In the appeal, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi supported the notification's legality and cited anticipated festival crowds. The state said restaurants could still serve vegetarian food; owners disputed the impact on their businesses.

What Happens Next in the Non-Veg Ban Case?

The division bench has kept the August 10 notification in force until the November 25, 2026 returnable date, and the single-judge decision remains stayed until further orders. The appeal will be listed alongside the related 2018 petition. Affected eateries must therefore follow the existing rules unless another court order changes them.

For now, the Gujarat High Court must consider whether Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act authorises the prohibition on non-vegetarian food businesses in the notified area. The dispute is still before the court.