Supreme Court Stays UP & Uttarakhand Govt Direction To Eateries On Kanwariya Route To Display Owner & Staff Names

The Supreme Court today stayed the directions issued by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to the effect that eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route should display the names of the owners and staff outside the shops.

"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 respective establishments. It is ordered accordingly", a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti ordered while issuing notice to states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh in three writ petitions.

The matter will be next heard on Friday.

Background

The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage undertaken by Shiva devotees known as Kanwarias or "Bhole", during which they 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.

On July 17, 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. Reportedly, the directive is now being rigorously enforced across all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Against the said directive, three petitions seem to have been filed before the Supreme Court - (i) first, by NGO-Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), (ii) second, by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and (iii) third, by well-known political commentator and Delhi University academic Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel.

The petitioners argue inter-alia that the directives threaten a religious divide and violate the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is further claimed that they violate the right to privacy of owners and workers of eateries, exposing them to danger and making them targets.

Gist of Court Proceedings

Directives serve no reasonable objective: Petitioners

At the outset of today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (on behalf of the petitioners) questioned the “rational nexus” behind the directives. He pointed out that the situation is worrisome as police authorities have taken upon themselves to create a religious divide.

Singhvi claimed that the directives would virtually identify the owners and subject them to economic boycotts. Referring to other states, he added that there is possibility of a “domino effect” taking place.

In response, the bench asked if the impugned directives were formal orders or part of press statement. On this, Singhvi 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.

“It has never been done before. It has no statutory backing. No law gives police commissioners the power to do it. The directives is for every haath-gaadi (hawkers), tea-stalls…Giving of names of employees and owners does not serve any purpose", said Singhvi.

When Justice Roy asked again if any formal order has been issued the government, Singhvi replied that it was a case of “camouflaged order”, as the eatery owners and workers were damned regardless of whether they complied with the directives or not.

Singhvi further argued that the directives raise a larger issue of exclusion based on identity. However, Justice Bhatti cut him short, saying that the issue need not be exaggerated beyond what is happening on the ground. The judge emphasised that there were three dimensions to the directives, that are, safety, standard and secularism, and all of them were equally important.

Strict laws to prevent serving of non-veg food to Kanwariyas already exist: Petitioners

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.

To quote Singhvi, “There are a lot of pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus but they have Muslim employees. Can I say I will not go there and eat? Because the food is somehow touched by them [Muslim employees]?”

It was further added that the directives go against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution which prohibits identity-based discrimination.

At this juncture, Justice Bhatti shared an anecdote on the importance of personal choice. The judge reminisced that when was acting as a judge in Kerala, there was one hotel run by a Hindu and one that was run by a Muslim. Yet, he would often visit the vegetarian hotel owned by the Muslim because he maintained international standards of hygiene.

Directives issued without authority of law: Petitioners

Singhvi further 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.

Are directives voluntary?

During the course of the hearing, Justice Roy pointed out that the directives were voluntary in nature. Disagreeing, Singhvi said the same were being strictly enforced across states. “Your Lordship is harsh on people who violate, and harsher when people are too clever and camouflage”, he added.

As the bench insisted on knowing if there was any element of coercion in 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.

Singhvi pointed out that the directives state “sweccha se” (by will), but they are in fact camouflaged, because if the names are disclosed, owners/workers of certain communities would face economic exclusion. If the names are not disclosed, the persons would be liable to pay fine.

It was added that although they may seem to be voluntary directives, a Chief Minister has issued a statement that the directives would apply in general to all districts.

Initially, the directives were passed by Muzaffarnagar police. Now, such similar directives have been issued by Aligarh Municipal Corporation and in other districts as well, leading to domino effect in other States, Singhvi said.

He 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.

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.

The senior counsel pointed that the directives issued in states of UP and Uttarakhand not only ask for the display of proprietor's name but also the names of employees. He argued that the domino effect of these directions could be seen in Madhya Pradesh where the Yatra does not even take place.

Ahmadi further urged that the directives impinge upon the preambular promise of secularism and fraternity. He also contended that the directives violate Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.

Law prescribes only displaying calories and nature of food

Pertinently, in support of the petitioners' case, Singhvi referred to the Food Safety Standard (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and argued that law 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).

For context, Regulation 9 of the 2020 Regulations 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”.

In this regard, the interim order states, "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."

Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi, CU Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the petitioners.

Case Title: ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR) Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 463/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order