SC stays Kanwar Yatra order on displaying eatery owners’ names
The bench said that eateries may be required to display the kind of food they are serving but they don’t need to display names of owners, staff and other details.
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the directives issued by the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh that asked eateries on the Kanwar Yatra routes to display the names, addresses and mobile numbers of their owners and staff, but clarified that the only requirement would be to display the kind of food they are serving.
Seeking responses from the states by July 26 when the matter will be heard next, a bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti said that food business operators, including dhaba owners, hawkers and other vendors, need not display names of their owners and staff.
“Until the returnable date (July 26), we deem it appropriate to pass interim order prohibiting the enforcement of above directives. In other words, food sellers including dhaba owners, hawkers, etc., may be required to display the kind of food they are serving but they don’t need to display names of owners, staff and other details,” the bench said in its order.
The bench was hearing a clutch of petitions, including by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, political commentator and Delhi University academic Apoorvanand Jha, columnist Aakar Patel, and the non-profit Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Huzefa Ahmadi and CU Singh appeared for the petitioners.
These directives, purportedly aimed at respecting the dietary preferences of Hindu pilgrims and maintaining law and order, have sparked a political controversy with several Opposition leaders condemning the directives as an overreach of government power and for encouraging discrimination on the grounds of caste and religion. The Opposition has also raised concerns about the potential for increased communal tensions and the stigmatisation of certain groups, particularly Muslims, who own many of the eateries along the Yatra route.
Meanwhile, Moitra’s petition argued that these directives compel proprietors of eating establishments to disclose personal information under the pretext of respecting pilgrims’ dietary preferences and maintaining law and order.
“The impugned directives, issued with the alleged goal of respecting pilgrims’ dietary preferences and maintaining law and order, are manifestly arbitrary, issued without any determining principle, violate multiple constitutional rights, and outsource the State’s obligation of maintaining law and order upon the most vulnerable and marginalized sections of society,” Moitra’s petition stated.
Jha and Patel’s joint petition contended that the state governments’ directives constitute disproportionate intervention and violate citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution. “It also affects the rights of those Muslim men who have been fired pursuant to the issuance of the above directives, which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g),” the petition claimed.
The petitioners argued that such an “advisory”, forcibly enforced, represents an overreach of state authority. They contended that the public notice and its enforcement lack legal authority and encourage discrimination based on caste and religion.
“The impugned directives promote discrimination solely based on religious and caste identity, as they do not require the display of food items being served or a statement that no non-vegetarian or non-satvik food is being served, but only the display of religious or caste identity explicit in one’s name. This directly breaches Article 15 of the Constitution of India,” the petitions stated.
Filed through advocate on record (AoR) Akriti Chaubey, the petitions further stated that the directives endorse ‘untouchability,’ explicitly barred under Article 17 of the Constitution. Article 17 also prohibits the enforcement of any disability arising from ‘untouchability,’ including the practice of not being served by people of certain castes and religions.
Moreover, the petition argued that these directives violate the privacy rights of shop and eatery owners and workers, exposing them to danger and making them potential targets.