The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to entertain the petition filed by Jain Trust which sought a ban on advertisements of non-vegetarian foods, saying that the petitioners were trying to encroach on the rights of others by seeking such a ban.
The PIL had urged the court to direct the Maharashtra government to issue orders imposing a ban on meat and meat products in print and electronic media. The petitioners, who are three Jain religious charitable trusts and a Mumbai resident practising Jainism, claimed that their families, including their children, are forced to watch such advertisements.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that the court can intervene in a matter only if citizens’ rights are being infringed.
The judges said that it could intervene only if the rights of individuals were infringed. CJ Datta said: "As a High Court, we can only intervene when there is an infringement of any right."
The advocate for the petitioner tried to justify it by saying that they were not seeking ban on the eating of non-veg food but rather a ban on its advertisements on television and newspapers. "Air is for limited purposes. Don’t promote non-veg food. There is no restriction on eating or manufacturing," said the advocate.
The court noted that by seeking such a ban, the petitioners were effectively encroaching on the rights of others who eat non-vegetarian food.
"Why are you seeking to encroach on others’ rights?" asked CJ, adding: "There are two ways of looking at it. Either a man who does not have an education in law will say switch it (television) off."
Further, the court also said that imposing a ban falls within the domain of the legislature and that it cannot frame laws or rules imposing bans.
"You are asking for a direction to the government to pass orders to ban something. This falls within the domain of the legislation. The High court, in a writ petition, cannot say what legislation can be enacted," said CJ Datta.
The advocate then sought the court’s permission to amend the plea, which the court said could not be allowed.
The Court then allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, stating that the petitioner could file a "fresh petition with better material".
