Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notices to the state government over a plea filed by the Sri Honneshwaraswamy Devasthana Jeernodhara Seva Samithi Trust challenging a police order that prohibits non-vegetarian food around the temple premises. The petitioners have argued that the restriction goes against local customs and exceeds the scope of existing laws.
Petitioners challenge police notice
The case revolves around a notice issued by the local police banning animal sacrifice and prohibiting the preparation and consumption of non-vegetarian food within 200 metres of the Sri Honneshwaraswamy temple in Shivanagere village.
The Trust, which manages the temple’s religious activities for devotees from Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, contends that no animal sacrifices are conducted at the temple. Instead, due to space constraints, devotees traditionally prepare and consume both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food in a nearby kitchen and dining hall.
Petitioners submitted that the police order, issued citing an earlier court direction in W.P. No.18124/2023, misapplies the ruling. That order had merely required consideration of a representation made by an individual, and not a blanket ban, they argued.
Court’s observations
Justice BM Shyam Prasad, while issuing notice, observed that the government must clarify the circumstances in which the decision was taken. The judge further directed the additional government advocate to secure instructions on whether the local police had verified customs relating to food and services offered by devotees within the precincts of the temple.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on September 10.
Local objections
Residents of Shivanagere have also objected to the prohibition, pointing out that the ban would extend to household cooking and everyday practices, causing undue hardship. The petitioners have argued that the notice violates established local customs and exceeds the scope of the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959, under which only sacrifices, not food consumption, can be restricted.
The broader implications
The case highlights the ongoing tensions between administrative decisions and local traditions in temple towns. While authorities have often invoked public order and religious sanctity to justify restrictions, petitioners argue that such orders risk interfering with cultural practices and rights to food choice.
The High Court’s decision after the state’s clarification on September 10 will likely set an important precedent in balancing religious customs, local practices, and administrative control.