New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday put in abeyance the directives issued by the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh that mandated eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names, addresses and mobile numbers of their owners and staff. The top court emphasised that the primary concern should be the type of food being served, not the community of those preparing or selling it.
Saffron flags and T Shirts on sale on Delhi Meerut Road during the kanwar yatra in Ghaziabad. (Sakib Ali/HT Photo)
A bench, comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, issued the interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the controversial directives until the next hearing on July 26, ordering that food business operators, including dhaba owners, hawkers and other vendors, would only need to display the kind of food they are serving.
“Until the returnable date (July 26), we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the 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 the names of owners, staff and other details,” stated the bench in its order, as it issued notices to the three states where these directives are in vogue.
The directives, purportedly aimed at respecting the dietary preferences of Hindu pilgrims and maintaining law and order during the Kanwar Yatra, have sparked political controversy. Opposition leaders condemned the directives as an overreach of government power and an encouragement of discrimination based on caste and religion. They also raised concerns about potential communal tensions and the stigmatisation of certain groups, particularly Muslims, who own many of the eateries along the yatra route.
Allies of the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), including Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), Janata Dal United, Lok Janshakti Party-Ram Vilas (LJP-RV) and the Ajit Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) have criticised the order.
RLD leader Jayant Chaudhary and the NCP’s Praful Patel have separately urged the Uttar Pradesh government to roll back the order, LJP-RV’s Chirag Paswan said that he doesn’t support “divide in the name of caste and religion”, and JD(U)’s KC Tyagi has cautioned that the order may trigger communal tensions.
The bench was hearing a clutch of petitioners including 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. There was no counsel for the states since it was the first hearing of the matter.
During the hearing, the bench critically examined the reasons to display the names of owners and staff instead of the food items. Justice Roy highlighted the irrationality of such directives with a pointed observation: “What are the expectations of pilgrims on the yatra? Is it also an expectation of the yatris that the food is sold and prepared by a particular community and, taking a step ahead, also grown by a certain community? The government order initially says the directive is voluntary, which is followed by another order saying they will be penalised for not doing so.”
Justice Bhatti further shared a personal anecdote to underscore the irrelevance of the seller’s community in determining food quality. He recalled choosing a vegetarian restaurant run by a Muslim in Kerala due to its high safety standards, despite having other options run by Hindus. “Ultimately, it’s a matter of choice,” said the judge.
Justice Roy added: “In flights, you get Hindu meals, but you don’t ask whether the stewardesses are Hindus or not.”
In its order, the bench recorded the petitioners’ contentions that the directives were arbitrary, lacked statutory backing and violated multiple constitutional rights. They contended that the orders effectively promoted discrimination based on religious and caste identity, undermining fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution, noted the order while adding that petitioners also claim violation of the right to livelihood in the wake of media reports that some dhaba owners have sacked Muslim staff due to the fear of losing business.
Issuing notice on the three petitions, the court also recorded the petitioners’ objections to the police authorities in the state issuing purported orders when Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) happened to be the statutory regulator of such services. “The power vested with FSSAI authorities cannot be usurped by the police without any authority of law. They also say penal actions have been initiated against some of the food operators too. It is also seen that implications of directions are spread across multiple states in the country,” the bench cited petitioners’ contentions while indicating that its final order in the matter will cover all the states and Union territories.
Senior counsel Singhvi, representing Moitra, argued that the directives would lead to economic boycotts and increased communal tensions, pointing out that the directives, although initially voluntary, had been strictly enforced, leading to fines for non-compliance. Singhvi emphasised that such measures had no statutory backing and could result in the economic exclusion of certain communities.
“The directives virtually identify the owners and subject them to economic boycotts. It would lead to a domino effect in other states,” Singhvi argued.
Singhvi also highlighted that the Food Safety Standard (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, did not prescribe owners to name their eateries, and that the legislation only required labelling of calories and whether the food was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for APCR, argued out that non-compliance with municipal directives would result in fines ranging from ₹2000 to ₹5000. Assisted by advocates Fauzia Shakil, Singh called the orders “pernicious and worrying” where the police authorities are taking it upon themselves to ensure that people from lower castes and communities like Muslims are marginalised due to economic boycott,
Senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, representing Apoorvanand and Patel, added that many individuals from minority communities had reportedly lost their jobs due to these directives. Ahmadi said that the directives were in contravention of the preambular principles of fraternity and unity.
Moitra’s petition argued that the directives compelled proprietors of eating establishments to disclose personal information under the pretext of respecting pilgrims’ dietary preferences and maintaining law and order. Jha and Patel’s joint petition contended that the state governments’ directives constituted disproportionate intervention and violated citizens’ fundamental rights.
“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,” the petitions stated.
The petitions further argued that the directives violated the privacy rights of shop and eatery owners and workers, exposing them to danger and making them potential targets. The directives were said to endorse “untouchability”’ explicitly barred under Article 17 of the Constitution.
Opposition parties, and some of the BJP’s allies, welcomed the order.
The Congress said the directives were “unconstitutional” and the party hopes Prime Minister Narendra Modi can make BJP chief ministers aware of their “raj dharma (solemn duty)”. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) also hailed the top court’s order against the “anti-Dalit” directives of the three states, as the Samajwadi Party (SP) called it a “victory of harmony”.
The Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), which is part of the NDA, also welcomed the stay, saying the directives would lead to divisions in society.
The order was first issued in Muzaffarnagar on July 15, drawing immediate criticism. The Uttar Pradesh Police then softened its stance by making the order voluntary, but chief minister Yogi Adityanath appeared to double down on the diktat on Friday as his office extended the directive to all Kanwar Yatra routes across the state and instructed strict compliance. To be sure, no formal order has been issued regarding the extension of the directive.
The upcoming hearing on July 26 will further examine the legality and implications of these measures.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
