Today, On 22nd July, The Supreme Court has refused to stay the Uttar Pradesh government’s QR code order for eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route, directing that “all hotels on route must display license & registration certificate.”
The Supreme Court has given a big relief to the Uttar Pradesh government in the matter related to QR codes for food establishments.
The Court refused to stay the government’s QR code-related order.
The Supreme Court directed that all hotel owners on the Kanwar Yatra route must display their license and registration certificate.
While hearing the plea, a bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh had earlier asked both the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to respond. According to the petitioners, the direction to display the shopkeeper’s name is discriminatory and acts as a signal to the kanwariyas on which shop to avoid.
The bench stated,
“We are told that today is the last day of the Yatra. In any case, it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective Hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements. We make it clear that we are not going into the other issues argued. The application is closed.”
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s order. The petition opposed the state’s directive requiring all food shops and street vendors along the Kanwar route to display QR code stickers and also put up banners showing the shop owner’s name.
The Court noted that today marks the final day of the Kanwar Yatra and chose not to delve deeply into the related issues.
The Bench stated,
“We have been informed that today is the last day of the Yatra. In any case, it is likely to come to an end. At this stage, we say all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the license and registration certificate as required statutorily. We are not going into the other issues argued,”
During the hearing, a discussion arose regarding the State’s objectives and the rights of consumers. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the applicants, expressed concerns over a recent government directive.
Suggesting that the directive aimed to create societal divisions, he argued,
“The circular ostracises establishments owned by the minority community. The minority community is also selling vegetarian food only. I will boycott on the menu card. But I can’t boycott on the surname. Permission should have been sought to modify that order instead of violating it,”
Singhvi clarified that the focus was not on the names of establishments or cleanliness but on identity politics.
He stated,
“Obviously, utmost respect has to be shown to Kanwariyas. You obviously can’t have a meat shop there. This is a governmental intervention,”
The Court acknowledged that some individuals may prefer not to dine in restaurants serving both vegetarian and non-vegetarian options. Singhvi noted that patrons could always check the menu or inquire at the entrance.
He remarked,
“First of all, they display pure veg because they know the route,”
When the Court inquired whether these eateries serve vegetarian options year-round, Singhvi confirmed they do so only during the Yatra. The Court then highlighted the importance of customer awareness.
He commented,
“If one is pure vegetarian, some won’t touch garlic or non-veg. Let me be frank. Some of us judges also, when we prepare food, we say some will not touch garlic, onion, etc. It’s ultimately about the comfort zone. There may be some indication,”
Justice Sundresh then shared that he is agnostic regarding dietary preferences, but he raised concerns that restaurants changing their menus solely for the Yatra could pose issues.
He stated,
“I am basically agnostic. I have no issue with this. But it’s a matter of choice. If it’s a pure veg restaurant, there’s no problem. But if they are converting just for the Yatra, then there might be an issue,”
The Court emphasized that customers should be informed if restaurants previously served non-vegetarian food.
“We are not concerned with their restrictions. We are concerned with the customers. We are putting it to both of you. If a hotel is running as pure veg all through, then you are right. The question of indicating names will not arise. But only for the purpose of Yatra if someone changes from non-veg to veg, then the customers should know. There should be a way to indicate this restaurant earlier used to serve non-veg food but has converted to vegetarian now for the Yatra.”
The Court concluded,
“It is about the mindset. Somebody may be satisfied with this. Somebody might not be. Somebody may want to have at a restaurant which serves veg throughout the year. Not just during the Yatra. Consumer is the king,”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State, highlighted the sentiments involved.
He stated,
“There are people in this country who will not eat in their brother’s house if non-veg is being cooked. There are sentiments of the devotees,”
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, also representing the applicants, argued that the State was merely trying to reveal the religious identity of the owners. He maintained that the identity of the owner and staff should not influence the food served.
He explained,
“If I start a business and I call it Bombay Mart. In the certificate it will be displayed as Bombay Mart. It will not be Bombay Mart/Huzefa. We are on the name of the owner. How this QR code works is very important. What is sought to be done by a colourable exercise is disclosing the religious identity of the owners,”
However, the Court opted not to address this issue.
Justice Sundresh remarked,
“We will not say anything on this. Marx has rightly said that religion is the opium of people,”
The application, filed by Professor Apoorvanand through Advocate-on-Record Akriti Chaubey, seeks a stay on these requirements that mandate or facilitate the public disclosure of the identities of food sellers along the Yatra routes.
The plea argues that these directives contravene a Supreme Court interim order issued last year, which stated that food vendors cannot be forced to reveal their identities.
The applicant claims that the new directives undermine the previous court ruling by implementing QR codes that serve the same function disclosing vendor identities and thereby enable religious profiling along the pilgrimage route.
Also Read: SC Verdict on Kanwar Yatra| “Unconstitutional Order”: TMC MP Mahua Moitra
The application asserts,
“These measures, though framed differently, effectively achieve the same discriminatory profiling that this Hon’ble Court had previously stayed,”
Furthermore, the plea emphasizes that while eateries are legally obligated to obtain licenses and display them, such displays should be confined to the interior of their establishments. The requirement for QR codes or public displays of personal information is viewed by the applicant as an overreach lacking statutory support.
Also Read: Kanwar Yatra|| PIL Filed in Allahabad HC Challenges Meat Shop Closures in Varanasi
The applicant also raises concerns regarding communal tensions, arguing that public disclosure of food vendors’ names and identities particularly those belonging to minority communities could result in targeted hate and even mob violence.
Moreover, the application contends that disguising these measures as “lawful license requirements” violates the vendors’ right to privacy. It argues that mandating the display of owners’, managers’, or employees’ names on external banners or QR codes, or requiring shops to adopt names reflecting the religious identity of their owners, exceeds what food safety and licensing regulations necessitate.
Case Title: Apoorvanand Jha and another v. Union of India and others, I.A in W.P(c) 328 of 2024