On July 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order staying directives issued by police in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand requiring restaurants and eatery owners along the routes of an annual Hindu pilgrimage to disclose the names of owners and employees on display boards.
Background
The annual pilgrimage of Kanwar Yatra takes place in the holy month of Shravan, when devotees of Shiva collect water from the river Ganges and carry it for hundreds of miles to their local Shiva temples. Many pilgrims follow certain dietary restrictions, including refraining eating food with onion and garlic, and abstain from consuming non-vegetarian food items. (Interim Order, ¶ 3.)
The directive was first issued by police in Muzaffarnagar, a city in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh, on July 17, 2024, and was extended across the state on July 19, 2024. One news report states that “all eateries – hotels, dhabas [roadside restaurants], thelas (roadside carts) – have been instructed to display the names of their proprietors or those running the shop.” Police said it was “done to ensure that there’s no confusion” among pilgrims and no “allegations are raised in the future, leading to a law and order situation.” Allegations were made regarding Muslim owned eateries “deceptively” naming themselves after “Hindu gods and goddesses” and contaminating food. Critics, on the other hand, “said the move was meant to stop the pilgrims from patronising eateries owned by Muslims” and “feared they [the police orders] would deepen the communal divide.” Al-jazeera reported that Muslim-owned restaurants and stalls were forced to close by police for failing to put up signboards with their names.
Petitions against the directives were brought by an NGO, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and individuals including opposition leader MP Mahua Moitra of the All India Trinamool Congress. The petitioners argued that the directives were discriminatory and that requiring the display of names would not achieve the purported objective of ensuring vegetarian food is served along the route. They also argued that the directives violated the Constitution, in particular “the secular character of our Republic as enshrined in the [Constitution’s] Preamble,” and articles 14 (equality before the law), 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination), and 17 (abolition of untouchability). As some of the employees of these eateries have lost their jobs, the petitioners also argued that it infringed article 19(1)(g) (the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business). (Interim Order, ¶¶ 5-7.) The petition brought by MP Moitra argued that:
The impugned Directives have been issued in a context of a documented rise in hate speech and hate crimes – most specifically, incitement to boycotts – directed against the Muslim community by anti-social elements . . . . In a climate in which individuals are actively urged to refrain from buying food from Muslim proprietors through the invocation of cultural and religious purity (all of which is a matter of record), the impugned Directives constitute a pretext for the revealing of religious identity through the compelled disclosure of names.
The government defended the directives, asserting that “the idea behind the directives is transparency and informed choice of the consumer” during their pilgrimage, “keeping in mind their religious sentiments so that they don’t, even accidently, fall foul of their beliefs.” The affidavit added that “even small confusions regarding the kind of food they are served, has the potential to hurt their religious sentiments and cause flare ups, especially in a communally sensitive area like Muzaffarnagar.”
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
The Court took notice that directives are being enforced “across multiple States in the country covering the route of the Kanwariya Yatris,” and ruled that its interim order applied to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. (Interim Order, ¶¶ 11 & 12.)
The Court stayed the directives requiring eateries and food sellers to display their names:
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, 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. It is ordered accordingly. (¶ 13.)
In an order of July 26 extending the effective date of the interim order, the court clarified that it “does not stop anybody from disclosing their names and identities. We are only saying that they should not be forced to do it.” The court again extended the interim order on August 5.
Tariq Ahmad, Law Library of Congress
August 7, 2024
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.