SC imposes interim stay on order asking eateries on Kanwar Yatra route to display names of owners
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday imposed an interim stay on the directives issued by the BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments that eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes must display the names of their owners.
Trinamul Congress MP Mahua Moitra and other Opposition MPs welcomed the apex court’s decision. Dubbing the top court order as “a great victory for the Constitution, and for all people of India”, Ms Moitra, one of the petitioners in the case, said: “We have just got a stay on the completely illegal and unconstitutional Kanwar Yatra order which UP had started… (first by the) Muzaffarnagar police, and had then extended it to the whole of UP and parts of Uttarakhand …This was leading to religious discrimination.”
Alleging that the directive for eateries, as well as decision to allow government servants to participate in RSS activities, indicate the BJP’s desperation, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav: “They will take more such steps. They are doing this to keep communal politics alive as it is nearing its end.”
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut said: “I welcome the Supreme Court decision from the depth of my heart. They have protected the Constitution… They want to spread hatred, want to cause riots. Any amount of criticism is not enough for this policy of the BJP.”
Congress Lok Sabha MP Dharamvira Gandhi termed the UP government’s directive as “divisive”, “unconstitutional” and “undemocratic”. He raised the issue in the House during Zero Hour, seeking the immediate rollback of the state’s directive, claiming the move was part of the BJP’s “divisive agenda” which would create fissures in society.
Mr Gandhi said by issuing the directive, the BJP wanted to further its political agenda, which would create divisions in society.
The AAP thanked the Supreme Court for imposing an interim stay on the “anti-Dalit” directives. “The BJP is an anti-Dalit party. In the recent Lok Sabha polls, one of the objectives of the BJP was to end reservations. Why were they giving the slogan of 400 paar? Dalits across the country voted against the BJP. To take their revenge against Dalits, the BJP governments are giving such orders,” AAP leader and minister Atishi said.
In the Rajya Sabha, Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar rejected notices from Opposition MPs calling for a discussion on the UP government’s contentious order. Opposition MPs had given notices under Rule 267 seeking suspension of the business of the day to take up a discussion on the issue.
Mr Dhankhar said the notices were “neither in conformity to the requirements of Rule 267 nor to directions given by the Chair… And so the same are not accepted”.
In the top court, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti issued notices to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh, where the Ujjain municipal body has issued a similar directive. The bench, however, said eateries may be required to display the kind of food they are serving, and whether they are vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
A large number of devotees travel from various places with “kanwars” carrying holy water from the Ganga to perform “jalabhishek” of Shivlings during the Hindu calendar month of “Shravan”. Many devotees do not consume meat during the auspicious month. The month of Shravan starts from July 22 this year and ends on August 19.
The judicial reprieve comes amid an escalating row over the directives, with even BJP ally Rashtriya Lok Dal joining the chorus for their withdrawal and Opposition parties terming the move as “communal and divisive”. The BJP, however, maintained that the step has been taken keeping in mind law and order issues and the religious sentiments of pilgrims.
In its order, the top court said: “We deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, food sellers may be required to display the kind of food, but must not be forced to display names of owners, staff employed.”
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on Friday. During the hearing, the state governments remained unrepresented.
The top court was hearing a clutch of pleas including those by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, academic Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel, and NGO Association of Protection of Civil Rights challenging the directives.
Representing Ms Moitra, senior advocate Abhishek “Manu” Singhvi said a “camouflaged” order has been passed to display the names of owners of eateries. The orders passed by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments are “exclusion by identity” and against the Constitution.
The bench asked Mr Singhvi to refrain from exaggeration, saying: “These orders have dimensions of safety and hygiene also.”
Underscoring the need for hygiene at eateries, Justice Bhatti said: "I have my experience and knowledge when I was in Kerala. I may not state openly as I am a sitting judge of this court. Without disclosing the name of the city, there is a vegetarian hotel run by a Hindu. There is another vegetarian hotel run by a Muslim. As a judge of that state, I was going to the hotel run by a Muslim for vegetarian food. When it comes to food standard and safety, he was displaying everything. He had returned from Dubai. He was maintaining international standards with regard to safety, cleanliness and hygiene. So it was my choice to go to that hotel."
Mr Singhvi said: “These directives 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?" The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 does not prescribe owners to name their eateries after their names.
Appearing for Association for Protection of Civil Rights, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that while the state authorities were claiming the order proposed voluntary compliance, it was being enforced by coercion. “It is not based on any statutory backing. No law gives the police commissioner power to do this,” he contended.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a public notice had been issued by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh.
Ms Moitra’s plea has sought a stay on the orders passed by the two state governments stating that the disclosure of the names of proprietors and 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”.
The plea also alleged that the move has been taken to create a socially-enforced economic boycott on Muslim shop owners and workers, and the loss of their livelihoods.
Days after the Muzaffarnagar police asked all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of owners of eateries, the Uttar Pradesh government on Friday extended the controversial order across the state.
Besides the UP and Uttarakhand governments, BJP-ruled Ujjain Municipal Corporation had directed shop owners to display their names and mobile numbers outside their establishments in the city where the famous “Mahakal” temple is located.
