Breaking: Supreme Court Stays Enforcement Of Orders By UP And Uttarakhand Govts Requiring Shops Along Kanwar Yatra To Display Names Of Owners And Staff

The Supreme Court today stayed the enforcement of orders of the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand directing all shopkeepers selling food items on the Kanwar Marg (the route taken by the Kanwariyas during the Kanwar Yatra) to display names of owners of shops. 

The Court was considering three Writ Petitions filed by the NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), TMC leader Mahua Moitra, Apoorvanand Jha, and Aakar Patel. 

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti ordered, "The challenge here is to the directives issued by the SSP Muzaffarnagar Police on 17.07.2024 and the threat of police action in the event of non-adherence to such directives. The controversy on the impugned directives issued by the Muzaffar Police in Hindi and the translation thereof reads as under...... The above suggests that as the kanwariyas in the holy month of Shravan while undertaking the journey to collect water from the river Ganga abstain from certain food items in their diet. This can be understood as abstaining from consuming any non-vegetarian food or in the event of those who follow strict vegetarianism, renouncing even onion and garlic. If the intention is to provide only vegetarian food to Kanwarias, the directives as given requiring the food business operators to display the names of their owners and employees is contented to be contrary to the constitutional and legal norms prevalent in our country".

The Court further said in its order, "It is the argument of the practitioners that the above directives are discriminatory on the grounds of religion and would further the cause of untouchability. To require the vendors to display the name of the owners and the staff in his establishment cannot by itself be termed as a measure to ensure vegetarian or sudh sakahari food to the Kanwaria yatris. It is argued that the dietary choice of the yatris can certainly be ensured by requiring only sakahari food to be served on the route of the Kanwarias. The requirement of displaying the names of the proprietors of the establishments and also the names of their staff will hardly achieve the intended objective. If it is specifically argued that the directive without any support of constitutional or legal provisions are permitted to be enforced, it will infringe the secular character of our republic. This will also have the effect of violation of the guaranteed rights under Articles 14, 15(1), 17 of the Constitution".

The Court further said, "As a consequence of the above directives, some of the employees have been retrenched, the argument is that this will also affect the rights of such employees under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is permissible to ensure that the Kanwarias are served vegetarian food confirming to the standards of hygiene, but the authority may perhaps issue orders under the Food Saftey Act or the Street Vendors Act, but the powers vested on commented authority cannot be usurped by the Pollice without any formal order supported by law. It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned directives, penal actions have been taken against certain business owners. The action is spread across multiple states along the route of the Kanvaria yatras.

The Court directed, "Let notice be issued in the Writ Petitions. Notice is made returnable on Friday. The Petitioners are permitted to serve dasti notice on the standing counsel of UP, Uttarakhand, MP and Delhi. If these states are not already impleaded, we order suo moto impleadment. Until the returnable date, having regard to the above discussions, we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, food sellers, including daba owners, hawkers etc. may be required to display the kind of food they are serving to the Kanwarinas. But they must be forced to display the names of the owners and staff".

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh appearing for the APCR, at the outset submitted that the four states have passed similar orders. He termed the orders "pernicious" and "worrying". Police authorities are taking it upon themselves to create a divide where lower caste, minorities are identified, he submitted. 

He read from a press statement issued by a state and submitted that thereafter the Police issued an order. He submitted that the order says that it is voluntary but it is being enforced. He says that such an order has never been passed in past and that the same is without the backing of any law. He said that only the kind of food can be directed to be published, but not the names of employees and owners. He submitted that this applies even to stalls and small shops. He said that directing publication of names will not serve any purpose and that persons from any community can run shops of any nature, vegetarian, non-vegetarian etc. 

"Is there a formal order from the government for this to be displayed?", Justice Roy asked.

"In a sense, it is a camouflaged order",  Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi replied. Singhvi was appearing for Mahua Moitra and other Petitioners in a Writ Petition. 

It appears to be voluntary, said Justice Roy.

"So, there is an element of coercion", Justice Roy said after Singh read orders by Police.  

Singh further submitted that this would mean economic death for small stalls and vendors. 

Abhishek Manu Singhvi then submitted, "In a lighter vein, you go to a restaurant based on the menu, not the surname of the owner. Idiea is exclusion by identity". 

"You can insist for Sudh Sakahari", Singhvi submitted that shops can be asked to publish the kind of food they serve.  

"Let us not narrate events in a manner more exaggerated than what is on the ground", Justice Bhatti said. Justice Bhatti then paraphrased the submission of the Petitioners and said that submissions should be made without exaggeration. 

Singhvi submitted that there can be vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus which may have Muslim employees. He then submitted that the order is without any authority of law. "If I disclose I am dammed, if I don't disclose I am dammed", he submitted.

"Even among non-vegetarians, few want to eat only Halal food", Justice Bhatti remarked. The Judge asked for clarity on whether the order was mandatory or not. 

Singhvi then submitted that there are clear directives which are binding. He pointed out the orders from different states. "The idea is, I am warning you Mr. Yatri, please exclude", Singhvi submitted that orders are camouflaged. "Even non-minority owners will not keep minority employees", he added.  

Justice Roy then asked what is the expectation of the Yatris as far as food is concerned. "Would the Kanwarias also expect that food should be provided by an owner who is of a certain community, cooked or grown by....? Is the Kanwaria expecting that the food should be grown by a particular community?", Justice Roy asked.

"Lordship's query is the real constitutional question", Singhvi responded and submitted that Kanwarias were not born yesterday and that the yatra has been happening since a very long time.  

Justice Bhatti then said that when he was in Kerala, he chose to go to a vegetarian restaurant run by a Muslim when there was also a vegetarian restaurant run by a Hindu nearby. He said that the Muslim owner displayed all the details in the restaurant and the said restaurant maintained high standards of hygiene.  

Singhvi then made submissions on what are the statutory requirements for restaurants and shops under the Food Safety And Standards Act. 

"This could also be an occasion to improve safety and quality of food in the country", Justice Bhatti remarked while considering the provisions of the statute. 

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also appearing for Petitioners submitted that Muzaffarnagar Police have issued a binding order. He submitted that the Chief Minister has made a public statement that the order requiring the publication of names of owners and employees must be strictly enforced. He read the statement by the Chief Minister and submitted that the orders are being endorsed at the highest level of the executive in UP and Uttarakhand. He added the orders are being enforced even in places where the yatras are not taking place. "There has been employees who have been fired after this, belonging to a particular community", he submitted and cited news reports of Muslim employees being fired.

Ahmadi submitted that the orders are violative of the principles of secularism. He added that orders also violate Articles 14, 15, 17 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 

The Court asked if anyone is appearing of the Respondents in any of the matters. However, no one appeared. 

The Court then proceeded to pass the order.

In preparation for the annual Kanwar Yatra, a significant pilgrimage undertaken by devotees of Lord Shiva, state governments recently issued directions aimed at ensuring safety and compliance along the pilgrimage route. The Kanwar Yatra sees devotees traveling to prominent 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.

Initially introduced as a voluntary measure, the directions issued by state governments have now been mandated and are being strictly enforced across all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The Uttarakhand government, aligned with these measures, issued an oral advisory effective July 19–20, 2024. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, the Senior Superintendent of Police in Muzaffarnagar issued a directive on July 18, 2024, requiring all eateries along the Kanwar route to prominently display the names of their owners. This direction was subsequently expanded statewide on July 19, 2024.

Another Writ Petition has been filed by a senior professor of Delhi University, Apoorvanand Jha, and a columnist and author, Aakar Patel, challenging directions issued by the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand directing all shopkeepers selling food items on the Kanwar Marg (the route taken by the Kanwariyas during the Kanwar Yatra) to display names of owners as well as of employees, at a prominent place outside the shop, dhaba, or restaurant, as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petition filed through Advocate on Record (AoR) Akriti Chaubey states, "The directive has been forcibly enforced often by over zealous police officers and non-compliance has reportedly resulted in detentions, whereas display of names has been followed by forcing business owners to dismiss employees of a certain community."

Terming it as an "overreach" of state authority, the petition states that the advisory assumes that only people of certain castes or religions can prepare and serve satvik, or pure vegetarian food, without any basis for such a classification, which is not only manifestly arbitrary but also discriminatory. "This directive is being enforced only vis-à-vis the poorest vendors and is not being applied to famous food chain franchisees along the way such as Domino’s, Barista, Pizza Hut, Haldiram, etc. Again, this discrepancy and lopsidedness, even in the forced compliance of the directive, is arbitrary and discriminatory towards the poorest vendors. There is no intelligible differentia between high-end food chains and poorer dhabas and carts," the petition reads. 

It also states that the directive has been forcibly enforced, often by overzealous police officers and non-compliance has reportedly resulted in detentions, whereas display of names has been followed by forcing business owners to dismiss employees of a certain community. "Such a directive has no rational nexus with achieving the goal of providing food that complies with pilgrims’ dietary preferences, since then the focus would have been on the menu and not on the religious and caste identity of restaurant owners and servers," the petition states. 

Furthermore, it states, "This directive encourages discrimination only on the basis of religious and caste identity, for it asks not for display of food items being served, or a statement that no non- vegetarian or non-Satvik food is being served, but only for display of religious/ caste identity explicit in one’s name. It is directly in breach of Article 15 of the Constitution of India."

Cause Title: Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Mahua Moitra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, & Apoorvanand Jha & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 463/2024, Diary No. 32131/2024, and Diary No. 32127 / 2024]