Today( on 22nd July), The Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended the directive for shop owners and hawkers to display their names during the Kanwar Yatra season, with the next hearing set for July 26. The court has issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, and other states involved.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today( on 22nd July), The Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended the directive issued by various state authorities, mandating shop owners and hawkers to display their names outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season. The directive has been contested, prompting the court to issue notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, and other states where the Kanwar Yatra is observed.
A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti has scheduled the next hearing for July 26.
In the interim, the court has prohibited the enforcement of these directives.
The court’s order states-
“Until the returnable date, considering the discussions, we find it appropriate to issue an interim order halting the enforcement of the above directives. This means that while food sellers and hawkers may be required to indicate the types of food they are serving to Kanwariyas, they should not be compelled to disclose their names.”
This ruling comes in response to a series of petitions challenging the recent directive by the Uttar Pradesh Police in Muzaffarnagar, which required shop owners to display their names during the Kanwar Yatra season. On July 19, the Uttar Pradesh government mandated that food and beverage shops along the Kanwar Yatra routes must display the name and identity of the operator or owner of their establishments.
The Uttar Pradesh government has justified this decision as a measure to maintain law and order. The court was also informed that similar directives have been issued in other states. However, critics argue that this directive aims to reveal the religious identity of the shop owners, specifically targeting Muslim shop owners, and is discriminatory.
The controversy has drawn the attention of several notable figures and organizations. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, activist Aakar Patel, and Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra have all approached the Supreme Court to challenge the directive issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police.
Critics argue that the directive is not only discriminatory but also an invasion of privacy and a potential threat to the social harmony in the regions where the Kanwar Yatra takes place. The petitioners have emphasized that such measures could exacerbate communal tensions and infringe upon the fundamental rights of the shop owners.
In light of these concerns, the Supreme Court’s interim order is seen as a significant move to prevent the possible negative repercussions of the directive. The court’s decision to stay the enforcement of the directive ensures that, for now, shop owners and hawkers will not be compelled to display their names during the Kanwar Yatra season.
Today, the Court began by inquiring if any formal order had been issued to enforce a contentious directive that has sparked significant debate.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, argued that although authorities claimed the directive was voluntarily adopted, it was, in reality, being enforced.
He stated-
“This directive lacks statutory backing and is not supported by any law granting the police commissioner the authority to enforce it. The only requirement is to specify the type of food, such as whether it is vegetarian. This applies not just to dhabas but to all sellers, and it does not fulfill any clear objective. Our Constitution, fortunately, does not prohibit individuals from operating establishments that serve certain types of food.”
Singh highlighted the severe impact on small vendors, particularly poor vegetable and tea stall owners, stating that they face economic ruin due to this enforced boycott.
“They will suffer severe economic repercussions and potentially face financial ruin as a result of such an economic boycott.”
-he submitted.
Supporting Singh’s arguments, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Trinamool Congress MP, pointed out the Court’s question could not be simply answered with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, suggesting a hidden agenda behind the order.
“The idea is exclusion by identity,”
-Singhvi said.
Justice Bhatti, addressing the concerns, emphasized the need for balanced arguments.
“Dr. Singhvi, let’s avoid exaggerating the situation on the ground. These orders also address safety and hygiene concerns. Your argument is that they lead to exclusion, correct? Let’s describe the situation without overstating it.”
-the judge remarked.
Singhvi continued, noting that Kanwariya Yatras have long been inclusive, with people of all religions, including Muslims, assisting the pilgrims.
“Now you are excluding,”
-Singhvi argued.
He further illustrated the issue by referring to Hindu-owned vegetarian restaurants employing Muslims and Dalits.
“There are many purely vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus. But if they employ Muslims or Dalits, will you refuse to eat there? These directives are issued without legal authority and seem to be manipulative. If I disclose my name, I am criticized; if I don’t, I am also criticized. What is the rationale behind requiring my name?”
Justice Bhatti acknowledged the complexities, stating-
“We all understand the implications of this situation. Some non-vegetarians may prefer halal-certified meat. What I am observing is that you previously mentioned you couldn’t answer my brother’s question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.'”
Singhvi responded that the directive was being implemented widely, leading to significant job losses.
“Hundreds are losing their jobs. We need to wake up and recognize the reality. The aim is to exclude not just one minority, but Dalits as well.”
-he submitted.
Justice Roy queried about the expectations of Kanwariyas regarding the preparation of their food-
“They worship Shiva, correct? Do they expect the food to be cooked, served, and grown only by members of a specific community?”
Singh replied-
“That is scarily correct. It is horrifying.”
Singhvi reiterated the long-standing nature of Yatras, predating independence.
“Does the cook, server, or grower have to be from a non-minority community? The court has raised the right constitutional question.”
-he added.
ALSO READ: ‘Viksit Bharat Yatra’: Delhi HC Questions Use of the Term for the Govt Scheme
Singhvi also noted that diners typically inquire about the food being served, not the owner’s identity. Justice Bhatti shared a personal anecdote, illustrating this point.
“I fully agree with you on that point. Without revealing the city’s name, I’ll share an example: There were two vegetarian hotels, one run by a Hindu and one by a Muslim. I chose the latter because I preferred its hygiene standards. The owner had just returned from Dubai, and he displayed all relevant information on the board.”
Singhvi responded-
“I am a non-practicing Jain, but I am aware that many people in the community avoid onions and garlic.”
Justice Bhatti remarked that hygiene standards might be another perspective to consider.
“These are also for hygiene standards?”
-the Court suggested.
However, Singhvi insisted that the issue at hand differed and suggested that the Court address hygiene separately.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi confirmed that a formal order had been issued, citing a public notice by Uttar Pradesh authorities. Ahmadi, representing Professor Apoorvanand and Patel, referred to a statement by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath regarding the directive’s enforcement.
“This violates the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity as outlined in the preamble.”
-he stated.
Notably, no representatives from the respondent authorities were present in Court to respond to the allegations.
