2026 Supreme(Gau) 1027

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH 
ROBIN PHUKAN, BUDI HABUNG, JJ.
People For Animals, An animal welfare organization, through its Chairperson (Trustee) - Appellant
Versus
Neizevolie Kuotsu alias Toni Kuotsu, S/o Kevilazo Kuotsu – Respondent 
WA Nos. 7 of 2023 & 12 of 2024
Decided On : 22-04-2026

Commercial sale of meat products is restricted to species specifically enumerated in food regulations. Executive authorities may enforce these central regulations to ensure public health, as the right to choose food and carry on trade is subject to reasonable restrictions protecting public health and safety.

Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 16, 18, 30, 86, 92 and 89 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 11 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 256 and 371A - Constitutional validity of executive notification banning trade and sale of specific meat product - Regulation 2.5.1(a) of 2011 Regulations enumerates specific animal species for slaughter and food consumption - Omission of a species from the permitted list implies a prohibition on its commercial slaughter for human consumption - Executive power exercised to enforce central law through state notification is within the ambit of constitutional duty - Fundamental rights to trade and choice of food are subject to reasonable restrictions under the interests of public health and safety. (Paras 46, 50, 70, 72 and 76)

(B) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Competence of executive authority - Executive notifications issued pursuant to policy decisions and in alignment with existing central statutory directives facilitate compliance with parliamentary legislation and are not unauthorized usurpation of power. (Paras 51, 71 and 75)

Facts of the case:
The administration issued a notification imposing a ban on the commercial import, trading, and sale of a specific meat product, citing public health risks and the absence of the species from the list of animals permitted for slaughter under existing food safety regulations. Traders challenged this notification on the grounds that it was issued without statutory authority and violated fundamental rights to livelihood, privacy, and personal choice of food. The lower court quashed the notification, leading to the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court held that food safety regulations serve as an exhaustive code for slaughter and processing. The enumeration of specific species for consumption acts as an implicit restriction on the consumption of unlisted species. The executive order served as an enforcement mechanism for these central safety regulations and reflected a directive to ensure public health, superseding individual trade interests where public safety and hygienic standards are concerned.

Issues: The main issues were the competence of the administration to issue a ban on specific food items, the interpretation of the list of animals permitted for consumption under safety regulations, and whether the ban violated fundamental rights to trade and personal liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislation defining permitted food and processing standards is intended to protect public health. The specific naming of species in subordinate regulations constitutes a deliberate exclusion of others. Consequently, the commercial slaughter and sale of non-listed animals are not permitted under the legal framework. Furthermore, Article 21 rights are not absolute but are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety and prevention of health hazards.

Result: Appeals allowed.