The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the Punjab government in response to a petition challenging the prohibition on the sale of meat, fish, and meat products in the Amritsar Walled City, which the government declared a 'Holy City'.
Court Proceedings
A division bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda issued the notice on May 29, scheduling the next hearing for June 22. The order came on a plea filed by Kuldeep Fish Company, a wholesaler of fish and raw meat, contesting the notification that declared the Walled City of Amritsar, Anandpur Sahib, and Talwandi Sabo as 'Holy Cities'.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner argued that the prohibition on the sale and use of meat and meat products within these notified areas lacks statutory backing. It was submitted that the state had employed executive power to enforce religious morality, despite the Constitution not recognizing any religion-based territorial classification.
"The respondents have neither defined 'Holy City' nor 'Walled City', including the jurisdiction and territory to which the same would apply, nor have they disclosed the statutory backing under which the notifications dated December 15, 2025, have been issued," the petitioner stated. Additionally, the plea highlighted that the state had not framed any rehabilitation policy for those dependent on the meat trade.
The petitioner further contended that a large number of people from other communities and tourists are being deprived of their lawful choice due to the prohibition. "Complete prohibition within the Walled City of Amritsar, while permitting the very same activities in other parts of the same city, is wholly irrational, discriminatory, and devoid of any intelligible differentia," the plea added.
Background
The Punjab government had declared the Walled City of Amritsar, along with Anandpur Sahib and Talwandi Sabo, as 'Holy Cities', imposing a ban on the sale of meat and meat products to uphold religious sanctity. The move has sparked legal challenges from traders and rights groups who argue it infringes upon fundamental rights and livelihood.
