The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed a contentious order issued by the BJP-led Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments concerning the Kanwar Yatra. The order had mandated that food stalls along the Yatra route display the names of their owners and staff. The court noted that the police were unable to enforce this requirement and could only request that food items be displayed.
The order faced significant criticism from opposition leaders. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi condemned the move, alleging it was designed to prevent Kanwariyas (pilgrims) from purchasing from Muslim-owned shops. He compared it to apartheid in South Africa and the boycotting of Jewish businesses in Nazi Germany.
The court, directing the UP government order be paused, referred to the “… implication of directives” and served notice to the UP, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh governments. Crucially, it also noted “… the threat of police action in the event of non-adherence to the directives…”
“…until the returnable date we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting enforcement of directive. Food sellers must not be forced to display names of owners, staff…” the court ordered.
The bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also made some strong observations this afternoon, noting “it is permissible for authorities to ensure kanwariyas (pilgrims) are served vegetarian food conforming to their preferences (and) maintaining hygienic standards”.
“Compelling all proprietors to display names and address, also of their staff, can hardly achieve intended objective…” Justice Roy reasoned, also adding, “…without support of provisions, if the directive is permitted to be enforced… it will infringe the secular character of Republic of India.”
The court was reviewing petitions that contested a directive from the Senior Superintendent of Police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, which required shop owners to display their names outside their shops during the Kanwar Yatra season. The police had justified the decision as being necessary for maintaining law and order.
Also read | NEET PG 2024: Test cities list released at natboard.edu.in, direct link here
Worrying Situation for Kanwar Yatras
Food, and who cooks and serves at restaurants, was at the core of arguments this morning.
“You go to a restaurant depending on the menu, not who is serving. The idea of this directive is exclusion by identity. This is not the Republic of India we envisaged in Constitution…” senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said forcefully.
“There are a lot of ‘pure vegetarian’ restaurants run by Hindus… but they may have Muslim employees. Can I say I won’t eat there? Because food is somehow ‘touched’ by them?”
The petitioners also flagged a “worrying situation where police are taking it upon themselves to create a divide… minorities would be identified and subject to boycott…” The reference was to the enforcement of what the authorities had said was a directive to be followed “voluntarily”.
“It has never been done before… has no statutory backing. No law gives police power to do this. The directive is for every hath-gaadi (hand-cart), tea-stall… giving of names of owners and employees does not serve any purpose…” Mr Singhvi said, hitting out at the “camouflaged order”.
Mr Singhvi underlined, for the court, the element of coercion in the directive. “News reports show a Municipal Corporation directive… that fines of Rs 2,000 and Rs 5,000 will be imposed…”
There was also a discussion on food safety and standards, to which Justice Bhatti had a humorous and telling anecdote. “There is one vegetarian hotel run by a Hindu and one by a Muslim in Kerala. As a judge in that state I used to go the one run by the Muslim. He had international standards…”
For more updates, click here.
