The directive given to shop owners and hawkers by authorities in several States to post their names outside of their establishments during the Kanwar Yatra season was stayed by the Supreme Court on Monday. [State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Association for Protection of Civil Rights]
Notification was sent to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and other states where the Kanwar Yatra is held by a bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti.
“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,” the Court said in its order.
On July 26, the case will be heard again.
The Bench was considering a number of petitions that contested the recent order from the Uttar Pradesh Police in Muzaffarnagar requiring store owners to post their names outside of their establishments in honor of the Kanwar Yatra.
On July 19, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government ordered food and drink establishments along the Kanwar Yatra routes to prominently display the name and identify of the business’s operator or owner.
According to the UP administration, the choice was made with law and order in mind. The Court was notified today that other states have issued directives along similar lines.
The judgment has drawn criticism for discriminating against Muslim store owners and for revealing the religious identification of the owners of these establishments.
The top court was approached by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, activist Aakar Patel, and Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra in opposition to the Uttar Pradesh Police direction.
The Court questioned whether a formal order had been issued to carry out this directive right away today.
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights’ senior attorney, Chander Uday Singh, stated that although the government claimed the action was voluntary, the mandate was being carried out.
“It is not based on any statutory backing. No law gives police commissioner power to do this. Only whether it vegetarian etc is needed to be mentioned. Not just for dhabas this but now for every seller. It does not serve any objective. Our Constitution fortunately does not say a person is barred from running places that serve certain food,” Singh submitted.
Singh went on to say that the majority of people impacted by this edict are extremely low-income entrepreneurs of tea and vegetable stands. He said that subjecting them to such an economic boycott would result in their economic death.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing the Trinamool Congress MP, supplemented Singh’s arguments by arguing that a disguised order had been passed, so that the Court’s query could not have a “Yes” or “No” response.
“The idea is exclusion by identity,” Singhvi said.
Judge Bhatti stated that there should be no exaggeration in the arguments at this point.
“Dr Singhvi, let us also not exaggerate what is happening on the ground level. These orders have dimensions of safety and hygiene also. Your contention is it is leading to exclusion, correct? Let us narrate without exaggeration,” the judge said.
Singhvi continued his case by stating that Kanwariya Yatras had been taking place for many years. He said, “People of all religions, including Muslims, assist them on their way.”
“Now you are excluding,” Singhvi argued.
The senior lawyer went on to say that Muslim and Dalit workers might work in many vegetarian eateries owned by Hindus.
“There are lot of pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus. But if they have Muslim or Dalit employees will you say you won’t eat there? They are issued without any authority of law, they are being clever. If I disclose I am damned, if I don’t I am damned. What is the rational nexus of giving my name?”
At this point, Justice Bhatti stated that the Court is aware of what was excellent and wrong in this regard.
“We all know what is good and bad in this. Some non-vegetarians would prefer halal certified meat. What I am perceiving is, you earlier said you cannot answer my brother’s question in yes or no,” the judge said.
According to Singhvi, the answer is ‘yes’ in most cases because the guideline is being followed everywhere.
“Hundreds are losing their jobs. We have to wake up and smell the coffee. Idea is to exclude not just one minority but Dalits as well,” he submitted.
During the hearing, Justice Roy inquired about Kanwariyas’ expectations.
“They worship Shiva, yes? Do they expect the food to be cooked and served and grown by a certain community?”
At this stage, Singh said “That is scarily correct. It is horrifying.”
Singhvi went on to say that Yatras had existed since before independence and did not begin yesterday.
“(Should) Cooker, server, grower has to be non-minority? Lordships raised the right constitutional question,” he added.
Singhvi continued, “Some people don’t care who owns the restaurant; they just care about what’s being served.” After that, Justice Bhatti related a personal story.
“On that I am completely with you. Without disclosing the name of the city. I will share with you. There were two vegetarian hotels, one by Hindu and one by Muslim. I went to the latter because I preferred the hygiene standards there. He was a Dubai returnee. But he displayed everything on the board.”
Singhvi then said, “I am a non-practicing Jain, but I know people in the community don’t have onion garlic.”
There can be more than one viewpoint on the situation, Justice Bhatti said.
“These are also for hygiene standards?” the Court said.
Singhvi asserted that the situation is distinct in this instance and that the Court might address the hygienic issue in a later case.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi responded in the affirmative when asked if there was an official order from the authorities, stating that the Uttar Pradesh (UP) authorities had published a public notice.
