The temporary ban had been imposed in Mumbai on the sale of meat in deference to a Jain festival. The Supreme Court has asserted that every order of prohibition has to honour the spirit of tolerance. And a ban cannot be forced on somebody’s throat. The spirit of tolerance has to be inculcated in a very subtle manner. All decisions of this nature should be guided by understanding at a mature level. The SC judges supported the lifting of the ban by the Bombay High Court. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had said that the state placing sudden restrictions on eating habits of citizens was not justified.
Advocate Munish Singhvi who appeared in the Supreme Court in support of the ban pleaded that some compassion should be shown for living creatures. The Supreme Court rightly contended that compassion for living creatures does not have to be only on a few days around festivals. This should be throughout the year. The ban on the sale of meat cannot be defended especially as it is also sold as packed food. Hinduism does not forbid eating of meat and so the ban on the sale of meat is not prompted by it. It is in the interest of the Jains who are against meat eating and therefore stopping its sale for a couple of days cannot be opposed as such. Previously, there used to be a meatless day every week in certain parts of the country though for some reasons, chicken was excluded. However, compassion for living creatures cannot be a religious issue. The Supreme Court was right to say that it should be forever or never. But a ban of this nature can create sectarian discontent.