Meat ban is a matter of fundamental rights, not of majority vs minority

What is the news?

The Uttarakhand HC observed that the matter of banning meat concerns the fundamental rights of citizens. India is a country where 70% of the population eats non-vegetarian food, and hence meat ban is not a majority versus minority issue.

Background:

In March, Uttarakhand had declared all areas in Haridwar “slaughterhouse-free” and cancelled no objection certificates issued to slaughterhouses.

• Section 237A was inserted into the UP Municipalities Act. It enables the government to declare an area under a municipal corporation, council or nagar panchayat a “slaughter-free” zone.

This order was challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court on the following grounds:

• A ban on slaughterhouses in Haridwar discriminated against minorities, as many areas in the district had a substantial Muslim population.
• A blanket ban on the meat of any type is unconstitutional.

What did the court say?

1. The issue is not a minority versus majority debate, rather one concerning fundamental rights of citizens. The bench cited surveys on the food habits of Indians from 2018 and 2019. It found out that 72.6% of the population in Uttarakhand and 70% population in India is non-vegetarian. This busts the myth that the majority of the population is vegetarian.
2. A ban like the one in Haridwar calls into question the extent to which the state can determine a citizen’s choices. The issue is whether a citizen has the right to decide his own diet, or will that be decided by the state.
3. The court had also said that a civilization is judged only by how it treats its minorities. “Democracy does not only mean rule by the majority but, most importantly, democracy means the protection of the minority.

Way Ahead:

• The court has now asked the petitioners to amend their pleas in a week as none of them pleaded that such a ban violates the right to privacy of a citizen. 
• As per the court, the petitions were not drafted with “whole-heartedness” that is required in challenging “seminal constitutional issues”.