# Right to business can’t override religious character of Somnath: Gujarat to HC 2026-10-22T04:57:31+00:00 | Governance | Indian Opinion Desk Corroboration: 5 independent outlets (6 source reports) The Gujarat government has told the High Court that the right to do business cannot override the religious, historical and cultural character of a pilgrimage destination, defending a ban on non-vegetarian food within 500 metres of the Somnath Temple. Government pleader G H Virk submitted before Justice Nisha M Thakore that over 1.16 crore devotees had visited the shrine in the past nine months, and similar restrictions exist in Rishikesh, Haridwar, Amritsar and Mathura-Vrindavan. Six restaurant owners have challenged the August 2026 notification, arguing the ban violates their fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). They say they hold valid licences, have operated for decades, and their establishments lie beyond the temple's immediate periphery. The government maintained that restaurants can continue serving vegetarian food at existing premises or sell non-vegetarian items outside the notified area. The case is pending before a single-judge bench. Update, 22 October 2026: Business Standard now reports the story, confirming the government's submission before Justice Nisha M Thakore that over 1.16 crore devotees visited Somnath in nine months. The outlet adds that the notification permanently bans sale and storage of non-vegetarian items in six specified prohibited zones. The restaurant owners continue to argue the ban violates Article 19(1)(g). ## Indian Opinion Analysis All five outlets cover the same hearing before Justice Nisha M Thakore and report the state's core argument, business rights cannot overrule a pilgrimage destination's religious character, almost identically, often in the same phrasing. The Indian Express adds the most detail, including a 2006 notification, the state's submission that restaurants can continue selling vegetarian food, and Virk's reference to Ayodhya and Vaishno Devi. The New Indian Express and Times Now use wire-like neutral language, while Business Standard and The Hindu remain closely aligned in framing. No outlet carries the petitioners' full counter-argument beyond their claim that the ban violates Article 19(1)(g). The coverage is uniform straight reporting, with no discernible pro-government or critical slant in any version. The case remains before the single-judge bench of Justice Nisha M Thakore. ## Coverage Coverage: 4 sources, 4 neutral - indianexpress.com (neutral report) Straight news agency-style reporting, no discernible slant - newindianexpress.com (neutral report) Neutral report, fact-led narrative - timesnownews.com (neutral report) Neutral report, focuses on government's submission - Syndicated copy - thehindu.com Straight report, wire-style coverage, no slant - business-standard.com Neutral report, mirrors wire copy closely This brief was synthesised by AI from the 4 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Tags: Article 19(1)(g), Gujarat government, Gujarat High Court, Somnath temple Canonical: https://indianopinion.org/gujarat-defends-non-veg-ban-near-somnath-temple-in-high-court/ License: Summary and commentary (c) Indian Opinion, reusable with attribution. Facts belong to the linked sources. Cite: https://indianopinion.org/gujarat-defends-non-veg-ban-near-somnath-temple-in-high-court/#story-in-brief How this brief was made: an AI model read the reports linked above and wrote this summary and analysis, which were published automatically. Published briefs are sampled every hour by an automated quality check; the editor verifies its findings and approves corrections, and corrected briefs carry a dated correction line. Stance labels are editorial classifications of how each outlet framed this story, assigned by the same model, not ratings of the outlets. We do no original reporting. Methodology: https://indianopinion.org/ai-use-policy/