📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Sujay2026
Religion
Supreme Court Upholds Non‑Veg Ban at Gujarat’s Somnath Temple
✍️ Livemint
🗓 08 Nov 2026, 03:01 AM
👁 20
The Supreme Court declined to remove the prohibition on non‑vegetarian offerings at the Somnath Temple, citing legal and religious considerations.
The Supreme Court has rejected a petition seeking to lift the ban on non‑vegetarian food offerings at the historic Somnath Temple in Gujarat. The bench held that the existing restriction aligns with the temple's long‑standing customs and the management's authority over ritual practices.
Petitioners argued that the ban infringes on devotees' rights, but the judges emphasized that matters of religious rites fall within the domain of the temple trust and cannot be altered by external directives. They also noted that previous court orders have consistently upheld the prohibition.
Somnath, a prominent Shiva shrine attracting millions of pilgrims annually, has maintained the non‑veg ban for several decades. The Supreme Court's decision therefore preserves the status quo, leaving the temple's internal regulations unchanged.
Legal experts suggest that any future challenge would need to address both constitutional provisions and the delicate balance between state intervention and religious autonomy.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in intervening in religious affairs, reaffirming that such issues are best resolved within the framework of established temple governance.
Petitioners argued that the ban infringes on devotees' rights, but the judges emphasized that matters of religious rites fall within the domain of the temple trust and cannot be altered by external directives. They also noted that previous court orders have consistently upheld the prohibition.
Somnath, a prominent Shiva shrine attracting millions of pilgrims annually, has maintained the non‑veg ban for several decades. The Supreme Court's decision therefore preserves the status quo, leaving the temple's internal regulations unchanged.
Legal experts suggest that any future challenge would need to address both constitutional provisions and the delicate balance between state intervention and religious autonomy.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in intervening in religious affairs, reaffirming that such issues are best resolved within the framework of established temple governance.