Kanwar Yatra: Supreme Court stays directive to shops along yatra route to display owner's name

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the direction issued by authorities in various States to the shop owners and hawkers to display their names outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season. [Association for Protection of Civil Rights vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors].A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and other states where Kanwar Yatra takes place. "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," the Court said in its order.The matter will be heard next on July 26..The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the recent directive by the Uttar Pradesh Police in Muzaffarnagar to shop owners to display their names outside shops during the Kanwar Yatra season.The Uttar Pradesh (UP) government on July 19 made it mandatory for food and beverage shops along Kanwar Yatra routes to display the name and identity of the operator/owner of their establishments.The UP government has maintained that the decision was in the interest of law and order. The Court was today informed that similar directive have been issued in other states.The decision has been criticised on the ground that the same has been done to reveal the religious identity of the owners of such establishments and is discriminatory against Muslim shop owners.Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand with activist Aakar Patel, and Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra approached the top court against the directive issued by Uttar Pradesh Police..The Court today at the outset asked whether any formal order had been passed to enforce such direction.Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, who represented Association for Protection of Civil Rights, said that while the authorities were claiming it was voluntarily done, the directive was being enforced"It is not based on any statutory backing. No law gives police commissioner power to do this. Only whether it vegetarian etc is needed to be mentioned. Not just for dhabas this but now for every seller. It does not serve any objective. Our Constitution fortunately does not say a person is barred from running places that serve certain food," Singh submitted.Singh further said the bulk of those affected by such directive are very poor vegetable and tea stall owners. They will have economic death on being subjected to such economic boycott, he submitted..Adding to Singh's arguments, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing the Trinamool Congress MP, submitted that the Court's question cannot be answered in 'Yes' or 'No' as a camouflaged order had been passed."The idea is exclusion by identity," Singhvi said.At this stage, Justice Bhatti said there should not be any exaggeration in the arguments."Dr Singhvi, let us also not exaggerate what is happening on the ground level. These orders have dimensions of safety and hygiene also. Your contention is it is leading to exclusion, correct? Let us narrate without exaggeration," the judge said.Continuing with his arguments, Singhvi submitted that Kanwariya Yatras have been happening for decades. People of all religions including Muslims help them on their way, he added"Now you are excluding," Singhvi argued.The senior counsel further submitted that many vegetarian restaurants being run by Hindus may have Muslim and Dalit employees."There are lot of pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus. But if they have Muslim or Dalit employees will you say you won't eat there? They 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?".Justice Bhatti at this stage said the Court knows what was good and bad in such direction."We all know what is good and bad in this. Some non-vegetarians would prefer halal certified meat. What I am perceiving is, you earlier said you cannot answer my brother's question in yes or no," the judge said.Singhvi responded that the answer largely is 'yes' as the directive was being implemented all across."Hundreds are losing their jobs. We have to wake up and smell the coffee. Idea is to exclude not just one minority but Dalits as well," he submitted..Justice Roy, during the hearing, asked about expectations of Kanwariyas? "They worship Shiva, yes? Do they expect the food to be cooked and served and grown by a certain community?" At this stage, Singh said"That is scarily correct. It is horrifying."Singhvi further argued that Yatras did not start yesterday but have been there since before independence. "(Should) Cooker, server, grower has to be non-minority? Lordships raised the right constitutional question," he added.Singhvi further said some nobody asks who the owner of the eatery is but what is being served. Justice Bhatti then shared a personal experience. "On that I am completely with you. Without disclosing the name of the city. I will share with you. There were two vegetarian hotels, one by Hindu and one by Muslim. I went to the latter because I preferred the hygiene standards there. He was a Dubai returnee. But he displayed everything on the board."Singhvi then said,"I am a non-practicing Jain, but I know people in the community don't have onion garlic.".Justice Bhatti remarked that there may be another perspective in the matter. "These are also for hygiene standards?" the Court said.However, Singhvi said the issue is different here and the Court may handle the question of hygiene in a separate case. .On whether there was a formal order by authorities, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi answered in affirmative and submitted that a public notice had been issued by the authorities in Uttar Pradesh (UP).Ahmadi, who was representing Professor Apoorvanand and Patel, also referred to the statement made by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath about enforcement of the directions issued by the Police."This violates preambular goals of secularism and fraternity," he said..Besides Singhvi, CU Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi, advocates Shadan Farasat, Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Shivansh Saxena, Shadan Farasat, Amit Bhandari, Gautam Bhatia, Prannv Dhawan, Abhishek Babbar, Shadab Azhar, Aman Naqvi, Harshit Anand, Natasha Maheshwari, Mreganka Kukreja, Shahruk Alam, Akriti Chaubey, Sadhana Madhavan, Tamanna Pankaj and Shantanu Singh appeared for the petitioners.None appeared for the respondent authorities..[Read Order]