SC stays Kanwariya route diktat: No need to display owners’ names, show menu upfront

Issuing notice to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and those with the Yatra route, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said, “Until the returnable date having regard to the above discussion, we deem it appropriate to pass interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, the food sellers… may be required to display the kind of food they are serving to the Kanwariyas but must not be forced to disclose the names/identities of the owners or employees.”

Appearing for a petitioner, Senior advocate A M Singhvi said there was no “rational nexus” behind the move. “Giving of names of employees and owners does not serve any purpose.” He contended that the police have issued the directions and accused them of attempting to create communal divisions.

Singhvi also argued that the directive has no statutory backing. “No law gives police commissioners the power to do it”.

While the plea filed by political commentator Apoorvanand and activist Aakar Patel sought the court’s intervention to ask the states to withdraw the orders, the petition filed by TMC MP Mahua Moitra accused the Uttar Pradesh government of “targeting Muslim-owned businesses”. In their petition, Apoorvanand and Patel said the “impugned directives encourage discrimination on grounds of caste and religion and cannot be seen to serve any ‘legitimate purpose’.”

“These directives promote discrimination solely based on religious and caste identity, as they do not require the display of food items being served or a statement that no non-vegetarian or non-satvik food is being served, but only the display of religious or caste identity explicit in one’s name,” the plea said. This, they argued, “directly breaches” Article 15 of the Constitution.

The plea said the directions promote untouchability and compromise the privacy of the shop owners and their employees, exposing them to the danger of being targeted.

In her petition, Moitra accused the Uttar Pradesh Government of creating “conditions for economic boycott of Muslims”. “Since June 2023, 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 said.

“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,” Mahua Moitra said in her plea.

The Trinamool Congress leader said the State’s affirmative obligation is to maintain public order. The State cannot outsource or abdicate its obligations by requiring citizens to give up their rights to free speech so that public order is maintained, she said. This inverts the relationship between the State and the citizen, and amounts to giving in to the “heckler’s veto”, she also said.

Mahua Moitra’s plea said 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 under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The orders are also manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, and violate the right to equality, the petition said.