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. This disclosure was made in an affidavit submitted during the hearing of a petition challenging the Punjab Government's notification declaring the walled city a holy city, which imposed restrictions on the sale of fish, meat, and raw meat products.
Background of the Holy City Notification
The Punjab Government issued a notification on December 15, 2025, designating the walled city of Amritsar, along with Sri 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 of Amritsar with immediate effect.
The civic body's affidavit, presented before the Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal and Justice Ramesh Kumari, stated that a subsequent survey revealed 44 premises were involved in meat product trade. Notices were issued to all shopkeepers and traders dealing in meat products in the walled city after the notification.
Action Against the Petitioner
The petitioner, a meat trader, was served a notice on March 24, 2026, directing him to cease the sale, use, storage, and display of meat products by March 31, 2026. According to the municipal corporation, the petitioner failed to comply with the notice. Consequently, a joint inspection was conducted on April 20, 2026, by officials from the Amritsar Municipal Corporation, the Animal Husbandry Department, and the Civil Surgeon of Amritsar, leading to the sealing of the petitioner's premises.
The affidavit further noted that the petitioner's trade licence had expired on March 31, 2025, and he was operating without a valid licence. The Bench has scheduled the next hearing for July 3, 2026.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner challenged the December 15, 2025 notification and subsequent prohibitory orders, arguing that the restrictions effectively banned a lawful and licensed trade without statutory authority, a rehabilitation policy, a relocation mechanism, or a reasonable transition period. The petitioner claimed that the firm had regularly paid licence fees and municipal charges and was operating under a valid municipal licence. Despite this, the premises were allegedly sealed without furnishing any statutory order or authority.
The petition raised constitutional questions regarding the limits of executive power, invoking fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade and business), Article 21 (right to livelihood), and Article 14 (equality before law). The petitioner argued that any restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and satisfy tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
Legal and Definitional Issues
The petitioner contended that the terms 'holy city' and 'walled city' are not defined under any statute, rule, or regulation. It was argued that executive notifications cannot create enforceable civil disabilities or impose blanket prohibitions on lawful commercial activities. The petition alleged that the measures selectively target traders in the notified area without any intelligible differentia or rational basis.
The High Court is now examining the validity of the notification and the subsequent restrictions, with the next hearing set for July 3, 2026.
