Today, On 20th January, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that halal certification is not limited to meat products but is being applied to many other items like cement and water bottles. He expressed shock at this practice and said that agencies charge hefty fees for these certifications. Mehta also pointed out that the total money collected through such certifications runs into several lakh crores, raising serious concerns.
New Delhi: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns regarding the extensive use of halal certification for non-meat products, questioning its necessity and its effect on prices. This discussion occurred during legal challenges to the Uttar Pradesh government’s ban on halal-certified products.
The ban has created significant debate, as it prohibits the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of such products within the state.
Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, who are presiding over the case, have scheduled the next hearing for the week of March 24.
The Solicitor General submitted,
“This could be a larger issue for your lordship to examine. For instance, non-believers who do not consume halal… Should the rest of the country be compelled to purchase halal-certified, costlier products just because a few individuals prefer them? The government does not want…'”
During today’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that halal certification is being applied to a diverse range of products, including cement, iron bars, water bottles, and even tulsi leaves, with certifying agencies reportedly charging substantial fees.
He questioned the rationale behind such certifications, stating,
“Everything atta, besan is being halal certified. How can besan or tulsi leaves be halal or haram?”
He emphasized that this certification leads to increased costs for consumers.
Mehta remarked,
“As far as halal meat, etc., is concerned, nobody can have any objection. Your lordship would be shocked, and I was shocked yesterday, that cement used is to be halal certified. Water bottles which we get are required to be halal certified and certifying agencies are charging… the total collection is a few lakh crores.”
He noted that these points have also been included in the affidavit.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, noted that even lipstick must be halal certified.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added,
“Another concern… Suppose I am Sikh, and for me, halal meat is prohibited. Halal implies that the animal would die slowly. Other religions say that you should not…”
Justice Gavai Remarked, saying, “Jhatka.”
Mehta continued,
“Jhatka, then he will have to have halal, because it has to be halal certified. There are several issues, my lord.”
Shamshad then argued,
“All are voluntary. Nobody is forcing anyone.”
The Bench inquired about the specific violations that led to FIRs in these cases, to which Mehta replied that they are based on government notifications.
Justice Gavai asked the Solicitor General,
“FIRs are registered against them for what violations?”
Mehta responded,
“For violation of the notification.”
The Court has postponed detailed arguments until March, allowing time for all parties to submit their rejoinders. The case will now be heard in the week starting March 25.
The Court ordered,
“We will hear it out. Four weeks’ time is granted to file rejoinder. Put up for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day after six weeks, in the week commencing March 25,”
In February 2024, the Court, while hearing a Writ Petition that challenged the ban on halal-certified products in Uttar Pradesh, granted interim protection from coercive actions to Halal India Pvt. Ltd. Although the Bench had previously issued a notice regarding the matter, it declined to issue any interim order preventing coercive actions under the notification.
In November 2023, the Uttar Pradesh government imposed a ban on the production, storage, distribution, and sale of halal-certified products within the state, while exempting exports from this restriction. It is important to note that halal certification serves as a guarantee that a product is permissible and complies with Islamic law, ensuring that no haram substances are used. In India, halal certificates are issued by private organizations, unlike in predominantly Muslim countries.
The Additional Chief Secretary of the Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA) in Uttar Pradesh issued a notice for immediate compliance.
The notification further indicated that only statutory institutions are responsible for checking related standards as per the provisions of the Act. Thus, it argued that halal certification of food products creates a parallel system that generates confusion regarding food quality and contradicts the fundamental purpose of the Act, making it untenable under Section 89.
During the hearing, Mehta expressed surprise at seeing non-food items like cement and iron bars labeled halal-certified. He pointed out the substantial financial ramifications of these certifications, suggesting that certifying agencies have greatly profited from them. He provocatively questioned the rationale behind labeling products such as wheat flour and chickpea flour as halal, igniting a broader discussion about the relevance of halal certification beyond meat products.
In response, Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, representing the petitioners, defended the holistic nature of the halal certification process. He argued that the Central government’s policy covers a lifestyle choice that transcends dietary preferences and includes various production processes. The conversation also highlighted the economic impact of mandatory halal certification on non-Muslims, who might experience higher prices due to the scarcity of non-halal certified options.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Petitions Against Uttar Pradesh’s Halal Product Ban
Advocates for the petitioners countered that purchasing halal-certified products remains a personal choice, not a legal requirement.
This hearing is a result of the Uttar Pradesh government’s controversial decision on November 18 to ban halal-certified products, following allegations of fraudulent certification practices aimed at boosting sales within the Muslim community.
The ban, strictly enforced within the state to comply with food safety regulations, notably excludes exported products. In response to the uproar and logistical challenges from the sudden ban, the state government provided a 15-day grace period for retailers to remove halal-certified goods from their stocks and issued directives for local manufacturers to recall and repackage products certified by non-accredited organizations.
Case Title: Jamiat-Ulma-i-Hind Halal Trust v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Other connected matters [W.P.(Crl.) No. 24/2024; Diary No.1732/2024]