Supreme Court Upholds Stay on Mandatory Disclosure of Owner Names During Kanwar Yatra, Allows Voluntary Display
The Supreme Court on Friday extended its interim stay on directives issued by certain states requiring shop and restaurant owners to display the names of owners and employees outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season [Association for Protection of Civil Rights vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors]. The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti reaffirmed that the interim order passed on July 22 would remain in effect.
“The interim order shall continue,” stated the Court, while giving Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh time to file their responses.
The bench clarified that there is no restriction on shops and eateries voluntarily displaying the names of their owners and employees outside their premises. “For voluntarily displaying names, there is no issue. Our order says that they cannot be forced to put out owner names and employee names outside the dhaba,” the Court remarked.
The Supreme Court had initially stayed the directive on July 22 after it was adopted by authorities in various states. The directive had faced criticism for allegedly targeting Muslim shop owners by revealing their religious identities.
Several petitioners, including the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, activist Aakar Patel, and Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra, challenged the directive. They argued that it was discriminatory and lacked legal backing, stating that only the type of food being served (vegetarian or non-vegetarian) needed to be disclosed.
In response, the Uttar Pradesh government argued that the directive aimed to respect the strict dietary habits of Kanwariyas during their yatra. The state maintained that transparency regarding food preparation was necessary to avoid any inadvertent consumption of non-compliant food, which could lead to law and order issues.
“The Kanwariyas follow a strict vegetarian, satvik diet, eschewing onion, garlic, and all other tamasic foods. Satvik food does not just mean the preparation of food without onions and garlic but also the manner of preparation,” the state’s affidavit stated.
The UP government highlighted that similar arrangements are made for other religious observances to respect dietary restrictions and prevent potential conflicts.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Uttar Pradesh, contended that the requirement to display owner and employee names was supported by law. He argued that the interim order was passed without hearing the state government.
The Court requested that the UP government specifically state this requirement in its counter affidavit. Similar submissions were made by the Uttarakhand government.
“Show us where all in your States have you sought such information to be put up,” the Court said. “Let there be a counter affidavit by the State saying that it is applicable all across the (concerned) State.”
The Court reiterated that voluntary disclosure by shopkeepers is permissible. “Suppose a shopkeeper wants to display the name then it is fine,” Justice Roy underlined.
The Court allowed two weeks for the affected states to file their responses and scheduled the case for hearing after three weeks.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi, along with other advocates, appeared for the petitioners.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
