On July 22, the Supreme Court of India stayed the contentious directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to the owners of the eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route, asking them to display their names outside of their shop. The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti took cognizance of the petitions moved before the impugned directives and passed an interim order asked the authorities to not compel all proprietors of eating establishments located along the route of the annual Kanwar Yatra to publicly display their names, addresses, and mobile numbers, along with the names of their staff.
While issuing the order after having heard the submission made by the petitioners, the bench stated that “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 respectively establishments. It is ordered accordingly.”
In addition to the interim stay, the Supreme Court also issued notice to states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh in three separate writ petitions that had been filed.
Brief about the notice of the state governments
The State governments issued the impugned directive amidst preparations for the annual Kanwar Yatra, a pilgrimage undertaken by Shiva devotees during the monsoon season known as Kanwarias or “Bhole.” In this pilgrimage, the devotees 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. The yatra, traversing through cities including Muzaffarnagar and Ghaziabad, culminates in Delhi.
Initially described as ‘voluntary,’ the state governments’ directive has been widely endorsed by state officials and is now being rigorously enforced across all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Additionally, the Uttarakhand Government has issued an oral advisory aligning with this directive as of July 19/20, 2024.
In Uttar Pradesh, on July 18, 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.
On July 20, in the face of the growing criticism, UP Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath, had issues a statement sternly ordering for the enforcement of the said directive to ensure that names and identities of proprietors are displayed to avoid confusion among pilgrims during the Kanwar Yatra. an Uttar Pradesh government spokesperson had also confirmed that the chief minister had issued this directive to ensure that participants of the procession did not get disturbed during their pilgrimage. Additionally, the spokesperson had also provided that CM Yogi will be initiating action against those selling and promoting Halal-certification products. This comes after a directive was issued by the state in November 2023 wherein questions were raised against Halal certification made mandatory by certain organizations for the sale of different products, including vegetarian FMCG (fast growing consumer goods) products and cosmetics products, which don’t require any Halal certification.
On July 21, the civic body in Madhya Pradesh’s Ujjain also directed all shops in its jurisdiction to display their owners’ names and mobile numbers to ensure “customer safety”.
Details of the petitions filed in the Supreme Court can be accessed here.
Submissions made by the parties during the Court Proceedings
No rationale behind the order: Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi made submissions before the Court on behalf of the petitioners. Questions were raised by Singhvi regarding the “rational nexus” behind the directives, by stating that no purpose was being served by the said directives. Singhvi emphasized that the directives have been issued in a clever manner so as to escape the scrutiny of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that they fail to comply with the proportionality test, as there is no rational nexus with the aim sought to be achieved, and also briefly spoke about the violation of informational privacy through the directives.
Forced enforcement by police, creation of religious divides: He pointed out that the situation is worrisome as police authorities have taken upon themselves to create a religious divide, by forcefully enforcing these directives on the ground. Singhvi further claimed that the directives would virtually identify the owners and subject them to economic boycotts. Additionally, Singhvi highlighted that even in case the orders were to remain “voluntary”, which they had been camouflaged as, the persons who would not put out the information would be identified and then face exclusion. The counsel also mentioned the fines that have been levied by the authorities by the Madhya Pradesh government for those who will not abide by the directives. Senior Advocate CU Singh, on behalf of petitioners, apprised on the basis of news reports that the directives contemplate fines of Rs. 2000 and Rs. 5000 in case of non-compliance. Singh emphasised that added that although these directives may seem to be voluntary directives, a Chief Minister has issued a statement that the directives would apply in general to all districts. Furthermore, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, also representing the petitioners, told the court that the directives may be considered as formal orders because they are issued as public notice under the stamp of the Muzaffarnagar police.
When the bench asked Singhvi whether the impugned directives were formal orders or part of press statement, he 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.
Domino effect: Referring to other states, Singhvi added that there is possibility of a “domino effect” taking place. Singhvi elaborated how, initially, the directives were passed by Muzaffarnagar police. And now, such similar directives have been issued by Aligarh Municipal Corporation and in other districts as well, leading to domino effect in other States.
Against principles of the Constitution of India: It was further added that the directives go against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits identity-based discrimination, as the direction has the potential for the Yatris to restrict themselves from going to shops belonging to the Dalit community. Singh also assailed the fact that many people from minority communities have reportedly lost their jobs leading to the violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
Additionally, it was submitted that the directives impinge upon the preambular promise of secularism and fraternity. Senior counsel Ahmedi also contended that the directives violate Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.
No legal backing regarding display of names, contact details: Drawing 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.
Pertinently, Singhvi also provided that the Food Safety Standard (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 does not require owners of eateries to display their names, or that of their workers, outside the shops. It was contended that the legislation only requires displaying of two things with respect to food items, that is, calorie component and nature of the food (vegetarian or non-vegetarian).
Singhvi highlighted Regulation 9 of the 2020 Regulations, which states that food service establishments having central licenses or outlets at 10 or more locations shall mention the calorific value against the food items displayed on the menu cards or boards or booklets. Along with this, the logo of vegetarian or non-vegetarian food should also be mentioned. However, these Regulations are not applicable to stalls and eateries that do not have central license or outlets.Taking note of the threshold under 2020 Regulations, Singhvi urged that the court may consider these conditions as general conditions that the law prescribes.
The proceedings also involved mentioning of Section 31 of the 2006 Act, which relates to licensing and registration of food business. Clause 2 of Section 31 clarifies that the requirement of license is not applicable to “petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells any article of food or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator”.
Order of the Court
During the hearing. based on the submissions made by the legal representatives of the petitioners, Justice Roy had emphasised that there were three dimensions to the directives, that are, safety, standard and secularism, and all of them were equally important.
In the interim order issued by the Bench, the Court observed that while undertaking the Kanwar Yatra, the devotees abstain from consuming certain food items.
“The above would suggest that the Kanwariyas in the holy month of Shravan while undertaking the journey to collect water from the river Ganges, do abstain from certain food items in their diet. This can be understood as abstaining from consuming any nonvegetarian food or in the event of those who follow strict vegatarianism, abstaining from consuming even onion and garlic.” (Para 3)
Based on the following observation, the Court pointed to impugned directive requiring the show owners to publish their names and details, along with that of their staff members, to not serve any purpose when it comes to only providing vegetarian food to the Kanwariyas. The Court held that any order ensuring only vegetarian food being served to the devotees as well as maintenance of hygiene would have been permissible by law, but the authorities cannot usurp power under the said disguise.
“It is permissible for the authorities to ensure that the Kanwariyas are served vegetarian food conforming to the preferences and also ensure hygienic standards. In furtherance to this, the competent authority may perhaps issue orders under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Street Vendors Act, 2014. However, the legal powers vested on the competent authority cannot be usurped by the Police, without legal foundation.” (Para 8)
After issuing notices to the standing counsel for the state of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, S Madhya Pradesh and the government of NCT of Delhi, the bench stayed the directives issued by the state authorities. The Bench asked the food sellers to display the kind of food that is being sold to the Kanwariyas, while deeming it appropriate to restrict any display of the name/identity of the owners and also the employees.
“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, foods and vegetable sellers, hawkers, etc) may be required to display the kind of food that they are serving to the Kanwariyas. But they must not be forced to display the name/identity of the owners and also the employees, deployed in their respective establishments. It is ordered accordingly.” (Para 13)
The complete order can be read as follows:
Related:
“Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked”: SC, following up Tehseen Poonawalla case