The Amritsar Municipal Corporation has informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that a survey identified approximately 44 premises engaged in the trade of meat products within the Walled City of Amritsar, which was declared a holy city by the Punjab government.
Background of the Holy City Declaration
The submission was made during the hearing of a petition challenging the Punjab Government’s notification dated December 15, 2025, which declared the Walled City of Amritsar, along with Shri Anandpur Sahib and Talwandi Sabo, as holy cities. Following this, the Department of Animal Husbandry issued prohibitory orders on December 23, 2025, imposing a complete ban on the sale, display, and storage of meat and meat products within the Walled City limits.
Survey and Enforcement Actions
In an affidavit placed before the bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal and Justice Ramesh Kumari, the civic body stated that the survey found 44 premises dealing in meat products. Notices were issued to all shopkeepers and traders, including the petitioner, directing them to cease the sale, storage, and display of meat products by March 31, 2026. Despite the notice, the petitioner continued operations, leading to a joint inspection on April 20, 2026, by officials from the Municipal Corporation, Animal Husbandry Department, and Civil Surgeon, after which the premises were sealed.
The affidavit also noted that the petitioner’s trade licence had expired on March 31, 2025, and he was operating without a valid licence.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner questioned the notification and subsequent prohibitory orders, arguing that the restrictions effectively prohibited a lawful and licensed trade without statutory authority, rehabilitation policy, relocation mechanism, or reasonable transition period. The petitioner claimed to have regularly paid licence fees and municipal charges and held a valid municipal licence.
The petition raised constitutional issues, invoking the right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g), the right to livelihood under Article 21, and equality under Article 14. It argued that restrictions on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and satisfy tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the terms “Holy City” and “Walled City” are not defined in any statute, and executive notifications cannot create enforceable civil disabilities or blanket prohibitions on lawful commercial activities. The measures were alleged to selectively target traders without any intelligible differentia.
Next Hearing
The High Court bench has fixed July 3 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
