Supreme Court Stays UP & Uttarakhand Govt Direction To Eateries On Kanwariya Route To Display Owner & Staff Names

The Supreme Court today stayed the directions issued by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to the effect that eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route should display the names of the owners and staff outside the shops."Until the returnable date, we deem it appropriate to pass interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the impugned directives. In other words, the food sellers (including dhaba owners, restaurants, shops, fruits and vegetable sellers, hawkers, etc.) may be required to display the kind of food that they are selling to the Kanwariyas. But they must not be forced to display the names/identities of owners and also the employees, deployed in their respective establishments. It is ordered accordingly", a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti ordered while issuing notice to states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh in three writ petitions.The matter will be next heard on Friday.BackgroundThe Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage undertaken by Shiva devotees known as Kanwarias or "Bhole", during which they travel to key Hindu pilgrimage sites such as Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri in Uttarakhand and Ajgaibinath in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar, to fetch holy water from the Ganges River.On July 17, 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, issued a directive requiring all eateries along the Kanwar route to display the owners' names. This direction was extended statewide on July 19, 2024. Reportedly, the directive is now being rigorously enforced across all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.Against the said directive, three petitions seem to have been filed before the Supreme Court - (i) first, by NGO-Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), (ii) second, by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and (iii) third, by well-known political commentator and Delhi University academic Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel.The petitioners argue inter-alia that the directives threaten a religious divide and violate the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is further claimed that they violate the right to privacy of owners and workers of eateries, exposing them to danger and making them targets.Gist of Court ProceedingsDirectives serve no reasonable objective: PetitionersAt the outset of today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (on behalf of the petitioners) questioned the “rational nexus” behind the directives. He pointed out that the situation is worrisome as police authorities have taken upon themselves to create a religious divide.Singhvi claimed that the directives would virtually identify the owners and subject them to economic boycotts. Referring to other states, he added that there is possibility of a “domino effect” taking place.In response, the bench asked if the impugned directives were formal orders or part of press statement. On this, Singhvi clarified that earlier, statements were given in the press, but later, the authorities strictly started enforcing them as even the UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath endorsed them.“It has never been done before. It has no statutory backing. No law gives police commissioners the power to do it. The directives is for every haath-gaadi (hawkers), tea-stalls…Giving of names of employees and owners does not serve any purpose", said Singhvi.When Justice Roy asked again if any formal order has been issued the government, Singhvi replied that it was a case of “camouflaged order”, as the eatery owners and workers were damned regardless of whether they complied with the directives or not.Singhvi further argued that the directives raise a larger issue of exclusion based on identity. However, Justice Bhatti cut him short, saying that the issue need not be exaggerated beyond what is happening on the ground. The judge emphasised that there were three dimensions to the directives, that are, safety, standard and secularism, and all of them were equally important.Strict laws to prevent serving of non-veg food to Kanwariyas already exist: PetitionersDrawing the court's attention to the fact that Kanwar Yatra has been happening in the country for decades, Singhvi beseeched the court to note that people of all religions-Muslims, Christians and Buddhist- have been helping Kanwariyas.As for the issue of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, he pointed out that there are existing laws which prescribe strict punishment for serving non-vegetarian food to those who prefer vegetarian.To quote Singhvi, “There are a lot of pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus but they have Muslim employees. Can I say I will not go there and eat? Because the food is somehow touched by them [Muslim employees]?”It was further added that the directives go against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution which prohibits identity-based discrimination.At this juncture, Justice Bhatti shared an anecdote on the importance of personal choice. The judge reminisced that...

Supreme Court Stays UP & Uttarakhand Govt Direction To Eateries On Kanwariya Route To Display Owner & Staff Names

Debby Jain & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags