The Supreme Court on Friday extended its interim stay on the directives issues by certain States to display the names of shop/ restaurant owners and hawkers outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season.
A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti said that the interim order passed by it on July 22 will continue. The Bench on Friday extended its interim stay on directives issued by certain states requiring shop and restaurant owners, as well as hawkers, to display their names outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season.
Also Read:‘Was to ensure peace’: UP government defends Kanwar Yatra diktat in Supreme Court
The bench confirmed that the interim order passed on July 22 will remain in effect. “The interim order shall continue,” the court stated, while allowing the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh additional 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. “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.
Also Read: Yogi Adityanath’s diktat for eateries on Kanwar routes across UP to display owners’ names
The apex court on July 22 stayed the directive issued by authorities in various states requiring shop owners and hawkers to display their names outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season. The court was hearing a series of petitions challenging such a directive by the Uttar Pradesh Police in Muzaffarnagar, which had been adopted by several neighboring states as well.
The decision faced criticism for allegedly revealing the religious identity of shop owners, particularly targeting Muslim shop owners. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, activist Aakar Patel, and Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra approached the top court, arguing the directive was discriminatory. They asserted that only the type of food being served—vegetarian or non-vegetarian—needs to be disclosed, and there is no legal basis for requiring the disclosure of the owner’s name.
The petitioners also noted that Kanwar Yatras have taken place for decades, with people from all religions, including Muslims, assisting the Kanwariyas on their journey.
In response, the Uttar Pradesh government argued that the directive was not meant to discriminate against any community but was intended to respect the strict dietary habits of the Kanwariyas during the yatra. The government stated that the Kanwariyas follow a strict vegetarian, satvik diet, avoiding onion, garlic, and other tamasic foods. The directive aimed to ensure transparency and informed choice for the Kanwariyas to prevent any accidental violations of their dietary restrictions, which could potentially lead to law and order issues.
The government warned that any Kanwariya mistakenly consuming food outside their prescribed diet could cause disturbances, given the large number of participants. The affidavit also highlighted that similar arrangements are made for other religions. For example, traffic restrictions during Muharram and Eid, special village fairs for the sale of goats, and movement restrictions on pigs due to their religious significance for the minority community.
