TMC MP Mahua Moitra Moves Supreme Court Against Requirement Of Food Sellers Along Kanwar Yatra Route To Display Owners' Identities

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging the directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the State of Uttarakhand, which allegedly 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

The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage during the monsoon season, drawing millions of devotees of Lord Shiva. A segment of the yatra, traversing through cities including Muzaffarnagar and Ghaziabad, culminates in Delhi.

On July 18, 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, issued a directive requiring all eateries along the Kanwar route to display the names of the owners. This direction was extended statewide on July 19, 2024.

The petition, filed though Advocate Shadan Farasat, contends that these actions exacerbate communal discord and threaten the livelihoods of affected individuals. Food entrepreneurs name their shops to cater to out-station travelers like Kanwar pilgrims, but the directive forces them to change these names to reflect the religious identity of the entrepreneur, the petition states.

“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”, the petition further adds.

The PIL prays for the Supreme Court to quash the impugned directives and issue directions for stringent and effective enforcement of Supreme Court's judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC 501].

The Supreme Court, in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, underscored the State's obligation to prevent and punish hate crimes and issued comprehensive guidelines to address mob violence and lynching, focusing on preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.

The petition alleges that since June 2023, anti-social elements have circulated doctored clips and fake news imputing that Muslim community members were polluting food served to pilgrims.

The petition accuses UP government of actively targeting Muslim-owned businesses, resulting in widespread economic boycotts and intimidation.

“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 reads.

As per the petition, certain anti-social elements have been creating a climate of hatred and intimidation, ostensibly for cow protection, leading to incidents such as the mob lynching of Md. Akhlaque on September 28, 2015.

These elements demanded the closure of meat shops along the yatra route, the petition states. The State of Uttar Pradesh initially directed the closure of all meat shops in Ghaziabad, later extending a statewide ban on meat selling in April 2017. This direction was stayed by the Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The petition further 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.

In July 2023 and July 2024, Muslim eatery owners received threats of closure, and WhatsApp messages identifying Muslim-owned eateries in Muzaffarnagar were circulated to prevent Kanwar Yatris from purchasing food from them, the petition states.

The PIL outlines the following grounds for challenging the impugned directives:

Article 15(1) Violation: The petition contends that the directives constitute pretextual discrimination on grounds of religion. 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 reads.

Right to Privacy (Article 21): 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.

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.

Freedom of Occupation (Article 19(1)(g)): 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.

Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)): The petition claims that the directives amount to compelled speech, violating the right to freedom of speech and expression.

“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””, the petition states.

Arbitrariness (Article 14): The petition argues that the directives are manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, and lack any determining principle, violating the right to equality.

Senior Advocate  Abhishek Manu Singhvi will appear for the  petitioner.

The petition has been drawn by  Advocates  Gautam Bhatia and Prannv Dhawan.

Case Title – Mahua Moitra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.