Kanwar Yatra: Supreme Court Extends Order for UP and Uttarakhand Restaurants to Display Owner and Staff Names
The Supreme Court on Friday, July 26, extended its interim order restraining the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments from mandating that eateries located on the Kanwar Yatra route display the names of their owners and employees.
The stay order will remain in effect till August 5, which is the next hearing date
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was reviewing petitions from the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, Professor Apoorvanand, and columnist Aakar Patel. These petitions challenge the decisions made by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments.
Senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Moitra, said that the Uttar Pradesh government filed a counter affidavit at 10:30 pm last night and more time is needed to file the reply.
The Court agreed to adjourn the matter as the counter affidavit was not available.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that as per the central law Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, all food vendors, including dhabas, are required to display the names of their owners. He noted that the interim order passed by the Court, which stayed the direction to display the names of owners, was not in consonance with this law. This happened because the petitioners did not bring the law to the notice of the Court.
The bench said that if there is such a law, the state should implement it everywhere.
Justice Roy stressed that the law should be implemented everywhere, not just in specific areas. He sought a response to show that it has been implemented in all areas. Rohatgi requested an early hearing, ideally on the coming Monday or Tuesday, as the issue would become irrelevant two weeks after the Kanwar Yatra ends. He also mentioned that it is the responsibility of the petitioners to inform the court about the existence of the law.
Singhvi argued that for the last 60 years, there has been no requirement to display the names of owners during Kanwar pilgrimages. Therefore, he suggested that it would be fine to allow the Yatra this year without implementing such rules. He also mentioned that the Uttar Pradesh government has admitted in its affidavit that the directive is creating discrimination. He read a statement from the affidavit: “The temporary nature of these directions ensures that they do not create any permanent discrimination or hardship for food vendors, while also respecting the sentiments and religious practices of the Kanwariyas.”
“They say there is discrimination, but it won’t last forever,” he said.
Uttarakhand Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi said that displaying the names of business owners is mandatory as per the law. He said the temporary order is creating problems. He said the state strictly enforces this requirement during festivals. Sethi also said that if any unregistered vendor creates any trouble on the Kanwar Yatra route, it can lead to law and order problems.
When the bench asked the Deputy Attorney General to clarify what could be termed as “mischief”, he cited the example of an unregistered vendor selling mangoes laced with sedatives to pilgrims.
The bench also heard brief statements from some Kanwar pilgrims who joined the case to support the government’s directions. These pilgrims explained that they only eat vegetarian food made without garlic and onion. However, they face confusion as some shops have names that suggest they serve only vegetarian food, but in reality, they serve non-vegetarian dishes. For example, shops named “Saraswati Dhaba” or “Maa Durga Dhaba” give the impression of being vegetarian. When pilgrims visit these shops, they find out that the owners and staff are different, and non-vegetarian food is served. This is against their customs and practices. The Muzaffarpur police issued an advisory asking shops to clearly display their food options to avoid such confusion.
The court clarified that it has not stopped anyone from displaying the names of owners and employees. The ban only prevents anyone from making it mandatory to do so.
After the order was passed, Uttarakhand’s deputy advocate general asked the court to clarify whether the state could still enforce the law requiring the display of owners’ names. However, the court said the interim order would remain in place.
The counsel representing the State of Madhya Pradesh denied reports that the Ujjain Municipal Corporation had issued a similar direction.
Senior advocates Chander Uday Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi also represented the petitioners.
On the last date of the hearing, the court issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi on three petitions challenging certain directions. The court followed these directions and said that shops and restaurants may have to display the type of food they are selling to kanwariyas, but they should not be required to display the names or identities of their owners and employees.
Read Also: NEET-UG 2024 Results Updated: NTA Releases Revised Scores Following Supreme Court Order
Background
The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage in which Shiva devotees, called Kanwariyas or “Bhole”, participate. During this journey, they visit important Hindu pilgrimage sites such as Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri in Uttarakhand and Ajaibinath in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar. The purpose of the pilgrimage is to collect holy water from the Ganges River.
On July 17, 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police in Muzaffarnagar required all restaurants along the Kanwar route to display the names of their owners. By July 19, 2024, this rule was extended across the entire state. It is now being strictly enforced in all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
Three petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against the directive. The first petition is by the NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). The second is by TMC MP Mahua Moitra. The third is by political commentator Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel, who are also Delhi University academics.
The petitioners argue that these directions could create religious divisions and violate the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the Indian Constitution. They also claim that these directions violate the privacy of restaurant owners and employees, putting them at risk and making them potential targets.
Join YouTube channel:Â weekly wakeup
