Kanwar Yatra: Supreme Court stays UP govt's 'nameplate' directive to shops

The Supreme Court, on Monday, 22 July, suspended the directives issued by authorities in Uttar Pradesh requiring shop owners and hawkers to display their names outside/on their premises during the Kanwar Yatra. The case is scheduled for a hearing on 26 July.

The matter, titled Association for Protection of Civil Rights vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, was addressed by a bench including justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, who issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and other states through which the Kanwar Yatra passes.

“We deem it appropriate to pass [an] interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, the food sellers... hawkers, etc., may be required to display the kind of food they are serving to Kanwariyas but they must be not be forced to disclose their names...,” stated the Court.

The original directive was passed by the Muzaffarnagar police. Several petitions, included by professor Apooravanand, head of Amnesty International in India Aakar Patel and Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra were filed challenging these directives.

On 19 July, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government made it mandatory for food and beverage shops along the Kanwar Yatra routes to display the name and identity of the operator/owner of their establishments.

The UP government justified this decision as a necessity for 'maintaining law and order'. The Court was informed today that similar directives have been issued in other states.

The decision has faced criticism because it is perceived as being aimed at exposing the religious identity of establishment owners and workers, which is seen as discriminatory against Muslim shopowners and staff against the backdrop of the Kanwar Yatra.

The court stated that Kanwariyas can simply be served food per their preference, maintaining the standard hygiene, and there is no logical reason for the directives.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was appearing for Moitra, queried the lack of a "rational nexus" behind the directives.

Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, commented that despite the authorities claiming it was a voluntary disclosure being called for, the directive was in fact being enforced by the police.

"There is no legal basis for this. No law grants the police commissioner the authority to enforce such directives," argued Singh. "It is required only to mention whether the food is vegetarian or not, not just for dhabas but now for every seller. This directive serves no legitimate purpose. Fortunately, our Constitution does not prohibit anyone from operating establishments that serve specific types of food."

Singh further emphasised that the directive disproportionately impacts economically vulnerable individuals, such as small vegetable and tea stall owners. He warned that they would face severe economic hardship and potential ruin due to this economic boycott.

Adding to Singh's arguments, Singhvi submitted on behalf of the TMC MP that it was a 'camouflaged order' with an ulterior motive. “The idea is exclusion by identity,” Singhvi said.

Justice Bhatti cautioned them against overstating their arguments at this point. “Let's refrain from exaggerating the situation on the ground. These orders also concern safety and hygiene. Your concern is that it leads to exclusion, correct? Let's present the facts without embellishment," the judge remarked.

Singhvi continued his arguments, noting that Kanwariya Yatras have been occurring for decades. He pointed out that people of all religions, including Muslims, assist them along their journey.

He stated that many vegetarian restaurants operated by Hindus may also employ Muslim and Dalit staff members:

"What is the rational nexus of giving my name?” Singhvi finally asked.

At this point, Justice Bhatti said the Court was familiar with the pros and cons of such directives. "We are all aware of the implications. Some non-vegetarians may prefer halal-certified meat," the judge remarked.

Singhvi replied that given the widespread implementation of the directive, "hundreds of people are losing their livelihoods".

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, meanwhile, confirmed that there was indeed a formal order from the authorities, stating that a public notice had been issued by the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government.

Ahmadi, representing Professor Apoorvanand and Aakar Patel, also cited Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath's statement regarding the enforcement of these directives by the police, and argued that this action contradicts the foundational principles of secularism and fraternity.

There were no lawyers present in court to represent the state government.

The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage where devotees of Lord Shiva, known as Kanwariyas, journey to pilgrimage destinations such as Haridwar, Gaumukh and Gangotri in Uttarakhand or Ajgaibinath in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar. Their purpose is to collect sacred water from the Ganges River to bring back for anointing the shivling.