Bombay high court: Ban on non-veg ads would infringe on fundamental rights

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing a PIL filed by three Jain religious bodies, and an individual, which sought directions to the government

The Bombay high court on Monday said that a petition seeking the ban on advertising of non-vegetarian products was an infringement of fundamental rights and as such, the issue was a matter of policy that fell within the purview of the legislature.

The Bombay high court on Monday turned down a petition seeking a ban on advertising of non-vegetarian food products. (Representative use)

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Madhav Jamdar was hearing a PIL filed by three Jain religious bodies, and an individual, which sought directions to the government and other official bodies to ban advertisements of non-vegetarian food products in the same vein as the ban on alcohol and tobacco products which are injurious to health. The petitioners claimed that non vegetarian foods led to environmental damage.

They withdrew their PIL after the court gave them permission to do so.

The petitioners’ counsel on Monday informed the bench that the petitioners had sought directions to the ministry of information and broadcasting, the state government, the Press Council of India, the food, civil supplies and consumer protection department and the Advertisement Standards Council of India to restrict advertisements in print, electronic and other media.

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity free from exploitation. However, the impugned advertisements exploit the mind of children and youngsters by provoking, promoting and intimidating to consume non-vegetarian foods,” the petition stated.

“What about violation of Article 19 of the Constitution (of others)? Why are you encroaching on the rights of others?” the bench asked the petitioners and said that there were two ways of looking at the issue.

“An ordinary man would say switch off the TV (if you don’t want to see the advertisements),” the bench said adding, “But, we would look at it from the point of law. What you are asking has to be provided by law, but there is no such law (imposing ban on the advertisements), and that is why you are asking us to frame the law.”

After the petitioners clarified that they were not against the sale or consumption of the non-vegetarian food products, the court said, “You are asking the HC to frame rules and guidelines to ban something. Is it within the jurisdiction of the HC or is it for the legislature to decide?”

The petitioners then submitted that there were some references that needed to be included in the PIL and sought permission to withdraw the PIL, which the bench accepted.