The Supreme Court of India, in a significant move, has issued notices on petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s recent ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products. This development follows the controversial ban implemented on November 18, which led to widespread debates and police actions across the state.
Also read-Supreme Court Collegium Nominates Two Women As Judges To Gauhati High Court (lawchakra.in)
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was initially hesitant to entertain the petitions under Article 32, with Justice Gavai questioning,
“Why should we entertain under Article 32? Pan India ramifications etc. is fine… but High Court can look into it.”
However, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the ban’s implications were national in scope and also impinged on religious practices. The counsel emphasized,
“It exposes me to criminal liability and such demands are already being made in Karnataka and Bihar. It has to be seen whether such order can be issued and this order is not even under FSSA (Food Safety and Standards Act).”
The petitions, filed by Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra, assert that the ban not only violates fundamental rights but also disrupts established certification processes. Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Halal India, highlighted the ‘pan-India ramifications’ of the ban, particularly its impact on inter-state trade and commerce. He stated,
“If a particular order or instrument is stayed by the high court, that stay will be applicable throughout the country. In that, the high court’s decision will also have pan-India effect. Inter-state trade and commerce can also be examined by the high court.”
Also read-Supreme Court Rules Governors Can’t Dismiss Ministers Without Chief Minister’s Nod (lawchakra.in)
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra, supported these arguments, noting that the ban has significant national implications and affects freedom of religion. He pointed out,
“Your Lordship’s attention is required on whether a notification of this nature can be issued and second whether entities carrying out this exercise as accredited bodies under the aegis of the commerce ministry can be subjected to prosecution, only on grounds that such a certification is there. Such a position, however, has not been taken for practices of other religions or denominations like kosher or satvik. This will also have a significant impact on public health, and on religious practices.”
The Uttar Pradesh government’s justification for the ban was based on a complaint alleging that halal certifying bodies issued ‘forged’ certificates to boost sales among Muslims. The ban, however, is limited to sales, manufacture, and storage within Uttar Pradesh and does not affect export products.
In response to the backlash and potential disruptions caused by the ban, the state government provided a 15-day grace period for retailers to clear halal-certified products from their shelves. It also directed 92 state-based manufacturers with halal certification from non-certified organizations to recall and repackage their products.
The petitioners have sought the Supreme Court’s intervention, arguing that the ban is unconstitutional and infringes upon the fundamental right to choose food based on religious beliefs. The case, Halal India Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 690 of 2023, raises critical questions about the balance between religious freedoms, public health, and the state’s regulatory powers.
Also read-Supreme Court Criticizes Calcutta High Court’s Remarks On Adolescent Sexual Urges (lawchakra.in)
