The Jain body moved Bombay HC seeking a ban on advertisements of meat/meat products as it infringes on their right to live peacefully.

Bench: A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav Jamdar 
 
The Bombay High Court took an unfavourable view of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Jain bodies seeking a ban on the advertisements of meat/meat products in media(print and electronic).
 
The bench said that the issue falls under the legislature's domain and it cannot frame rules imposing bans. It also noted that the petitioner seeking such a ban has effectively infringed on the rights of others.
 
The petitioners sought leave to amend the plea, stating that specific orders relevant to the issue had not been annexed. The bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw their plea and file a fresh petition if desired.
 
It was claimed by the petitioners, three Jain religious charitable trusts and a Mumbai resident practising Jainism that their families, including their children, were forced to watch these advertisements. It contended that such advertisements infringe on their right to live peacefully.
 
The petitioners further made companies Licious, Meatigo and Freshtohome Foods respondents. They sought directions from the authorities to issue guidelines to restrict and ban the advertisement of non-vegetarian foods across media.
 
Petitioners claim that the advertisements are not only disturbing and harassing vegetarians but also infringing on their right to privacy. They cited Article 51A (g) of the Constitution and argued that advertisements for meat products promote cruelty toward living creatures.
 
They further contended that alcohol and cigarette advertisements are already banned, and non-vegetarian foods are not healthy and cause damage to the environment.
 
The plea clarified that they are not against the sale or consumption of non-vegetarian food, and their request is only against the advertisement of such items.