Two petitions have been moved before the Supreme Court, one by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and the other by political commentator and Delhi University academic Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel, to challenge the 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 recent move of both the UP and Uttarakhand governments, which have now been adopted by the Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled Ujjain Municipal Corporation, have been severely criticised by the citizenry, opposition leaders as well as the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) allies of the BJP party. The directive, which 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, has been deemed to be against the secular values enshrined in our Constitution. the BJP party has been slammed for furthering divides amongst people on caste and religious lines, encouraging social boycotts, and endangering minority shop owners by passing such unconstitutional directives.
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”.
Brief about the petition filed by Apoorvanand Jha and Aakar Patel:
As per a report of LiveLaw, the petition filed by Jha and Patel alleges that the said directive goes against Article 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution, which ensure that no one is discriminated against and everyone is equal before law, and results in disproportional intervention by the state.
“The directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand cause disproportionate intervention and affect rights under Articles 14, 15 and 17.”
It is essential to note that post the issuance of the impugned directives, reports had emerged stating that Muslim employees were being fired in the state, especially till the Kanwar Yatra is over. The petition further emphasises upon the negative role that police officers play with such arbitrary powers in their hands, by stating that aggressive police officers have frequently enforced the contested commands with force, and non-compliance has apparently resulted in detentions. Referring to the same, the petition highlights the violation of Article 19(1)(g), which grants an individual the right to practice and profession, as well as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
“Further the directives also effect 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). Lastly the directives are also in violation of peoples’ right to privacy and to dignity, and consequently violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The petitioners have also maintained that the public notice and its subsequent enforcement are unconstitutional and that the “advisory,” which is then also implemented violently, is an excess of state power.
“Impugned directives encourage discrimination on grounds of caste and religion and cannot be seen to serve any ‘legitimate purpose.’ These directives promotes 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 contended, as per LiveLaw.
Furthermore, the petition also highlighted the impact that such practices will have on the marginalised community as displaying the names of the staff will have the potential to increase the myriad incidents of caste-based discrimination. In view of the same, the petition states that the said directive will bring back the practice of “untouchability,” which is expressly forbidden “in any form” by Article 17 of the Indian Constitution. The petition states that the directive will violate Article 17 forbids the imposition of any kind of handicap resulting from “untouchability” as it would promoting the custom of refusing to accept services from members of particular castes and religions.
Lastly, the said petition points to the fundamental right to privacy that has been guaranteed to the citizens of India, which will be infringed by the said notice as by forcing the owners and workers of shops and eateries to put out their personal information, including contact details and addresses, might expose them to danger, making them targets.
“These 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.”
Brief about the petition filed by MP Mahua Moitra:
As provided by the said petition, the impugned directive and the actions undertaken thereby will exacerbate communal discord and threaten the livelihoods of affected individuals. will worsen social unrest and jeopardize the livelihoods of those impacted. According to the petition, food entrepreneurs give their stores names that appeal to out-of-town visitors, such as pilgrims from Kanwar, but the mandate compels them to alter these names to reflect the entrepreneur’s religious identity.
“Assuming that the legitimate State aims in question are ensuring respect for dietary choices and maintaining communal harmony, there is no rational nexus between the said aims and the compelled disclosure of the names of the proprietors and staff of eating establishments along the pilgrimage route. There are multiple incidents where non-Muslim food entrepreneurs have failed to comply with the dietary restrictions required by Kanwar Yatris.”
It has been contended by the petitioners that by issuing such directives, the UP government is openly and deliberately targeting Muslim-owned companies, which will led to intimidation and broad economic boycotts. The petition also provides that the said instance of state-sanctioned exclusion or otherisation of the Muslim community will further the divides that have been existing in our society. Since June 2023, anti-social individuals have spread fabricated stories and edited videos online, accusing Muslims of contaminating the food provided to pilgrims. Even during the COVID pandemic, Muslim vendors were demonised on allegations of spitting in food, with the objective of spreading COVID amongst the population. These allegations had resulted in mass targeting and boycott of the Muslim community by the populace.
“Since June 2023, the Respondent No. 1 (State of UP) continued to empower and embolden the anti-social elements by actively targeting Muslim owned businesses based on fabricated and malicious information circulated by the anti-social elements. The Respondent No. 1, through acts of commission and omission, created conditions for the complete economic boycott of Muslim minorities on the pretext of their ‘impure’ dietary choices”.
The petition also highlights the issue of mob lynching over the bogey of “beef and cow slaughter”, creating a climate of hatred and intimidation by certain elements. As per the said petition, it is these elements, the far-right extremist groups, that demanded the closure of meat shops along the yatra route. The petition claims that anti-social elements, empowered by the State’s inaction, have propagated inflammatory messages targeting Muslim-owned establishments, leading to a nationwide menace of mob vigilantism and the targeting of Muslim minorities.
The petition further points to threats that Muslim eatery owners received regarding threats of closure in July 2023 and July 2024. There were also reported incidents of WhatsApp messages circulating after identifying Muslim-owned eateries in Muzaffarnagar to prevent Kanwar Yatris from purchasing food from them.
In similar vein as the other petition, the petition filed by Moitra also highlighted the violation of Article 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 as the ground for challenging the impugned directive of the UP and the Uttarakhand government.
In regards to violation of Article 15, the petition contends that the directives constitute pretextual discrimination on grounds of religion as the directives compel the disclosure of personal details, creating an economic boycott of Muslim shop owners and workers.
“In forcing the disclosure of the names of proprietors and even those of their staff, on the stated ground of respecting pilgrims’ dietary choices, makes it clear that “dietary choices” is a pretext, or a proxy, for the compelled disclosure of personal – and, in this case, religious – identity, through the disclosure of names. The upshot of this is to create a socially-enforced economic boycott on Muslim shop-owners and workers, and the loss of their livelihoods”.
The petition argues that the directives are manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, and lack any determining principle, violating the right to equality. The petition argues that the directives violate the right to privacy, including informational privacy. The compelled disclosure of personal information lacks legislative authorization and exposes individuals to social persecution, as per the petition. In furtherance to this, the petition submits that the facts of the present case show a legitimate fear of economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and public hostility. This is evidenced by intimidatory threats of closure to Muslim-owned eateries, circulation of identifying WhatsApp messages and doctored clips, widespread layoffs of Muslim staff, and coercive closures of dhabas with religion-neutral names, the petition states.
Additionally, the petition asserts that the directions impose unreasonable restrictions on the business activities of eatery owners and food sellers, infringing upon their freedom to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
“It is the State’s affirmative obligation to maintain public order. The State cannot outsource or abdicate its obligations by requiring citizens to give up their rights to free speech in order that public order is maintained. This inverts the relationship between the State and the citizen, and amounts to giving in to the “heckler’s veto””.
Related:
“Vigilantism is not permissible, needs to be checked”: SC, following up Tehseen Poonawalla case