Tuesday, February 18th, 2025

Do we go to a restaurant to eat or to see the owner’s name… What were the arguments in the Supreme Court in the Kanwar Yatra name plate case?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the government directive asking hotels and restaurants located on the Kanwariya Yatra route to display the names of owners and issued notice to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh on petitions challenging its directive asking eateries located on the Kanwariya Yatra route to display the names of owners. The Supreme Court has sought their response and posted the matter for hearing on July 26. The Supreme Court has said that food vendors should not be forced to display the names of owners and employees.

Petitions filed in the Supreme Court against the decision of the government

An NGO named Association of Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) had filed a petition against the government’s decision. The NGO argues that this directive promotes religious discrimination. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh in this matter and the next hearing will be on Friday. Meanwhile, the court has given interim relief and directed that shopkeepers will only have to mention the type of food they sell, and not the name of them or their employees. A bench of Supreme Court Justices Rishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti is hearing the case. Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for the NGO, argued that the Uttar Pradesh government’s directive violates Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution. he/she said that this directive is discriminatory on religious grounds and promotes untouchability.

‘The order is totally arbitrary’

CP Singh said, ‘This order is completely arbitrary and has no legal basis. The police commissioner has no such authority. It only needs to be told whether the food is vegetarian or non-vegetarian. This directive is not only for dhabas but now for every vendor. It serves no purpose. Our constitution does not say that a person should be barred from running places serving certain types of food. Shiv Dhaba is a chain all over India. The franchise can be given to any Muslim, Jain.’

Mahua Moitra has also filed a petition

The bench asked if there is a formal order? Singh said, ‘Every police commissioner has issued an order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for petitioner Mahua Moitra, said that this is a wrong one. he/she said, ‘This cannot be answered in yes or no.’ Singhvi said, ‘When people violate, the court is strict, but when people try to be clever, then one has to be strict.’

‘We go to a restaurant to eat, not for the owner’s name’

“So is action being contemplated against violators?” the bench asked. “Yes, coercion is there,” Singhvi said. “Most of them are very poor vegetable and tea stall owners and will suffer a lot if they are subjected to this kind of economic boycott. We have faced bulldozer action for non-compliance,” Singhvi said. “One does not enter a restaurant for the name of the owner, but to eat,” Singhvi quipped. “Dr Singhvi, we also have to take into account what is happening on the ground. These orders also have dimensions of safety and hygiene. Your argument is that this is leading to boycott, right?”

Kanwar Yatras happening since decades

“Kanwar Yatras have been happening for decades. People of all religions, including Muslims, help them on the way. Now you are ostracising. Now you are facing consequences that should never have arisen. By having to say if they are pure vegetarian… this…” Singhvi said, “There are a lot of pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus. But if they have Muslim or Dalit staff, will you say you won’t eat there? They are issued without any legal authority.”

Domino’s was also mentioned

Justice Bhati said, “We all know what is good and what is bad in this. Some non-vegetarians would prefer halal certified meat. What I understand is that you had said earlier that you cannot answer the question in yes or no.” Singhvi said, “It is pretty much yes. Because they have styled it as an order. I was being very cautious when I did not say yes or no. But Singh’s petition has made it clear.” Singhvi said, “Domino effect. This is now being implemented everywhere. Hundreds of people are losing their jobs. We have to wake up. The idea is to exclude not only a minority but also Dalits.”

What do the Kanwadias want?

Justice Roy said, “What is the expectation of the kanwariyas? They worship Shiva, yes? Do they expect the food to be cooked and served and grown by a particular community?” “It is horrifying to the point of absurdity. It is appalling,” Singhvi said. “We are trying to take it to its logical conclusion. What is the punitive aspect?” Singhvi said, “These yatras have been happening not since yesterday but since before Independence. How much backward integration do you do? The cook, the server, the producer should be non-minorities?”

“Some people want it without onion or garlic,” Singh said. “But we will not ask the owner,” Singhvi said. “On this, I completely agree with you. I will share with you without naming the city. There were two vegetarian hotels, one run by a Hindu and one by a Muslim. I went to the latter because I liked the hygiene there. he/she had returned from Dubai. But he/she displayed everything on the board,” Justice Bhati said.

‘We can’t evacuate lakhs of people’

Singhvi said, “I am a non-practising Jain but I know that people of the community do not eat onion garlic.” Justice Roy said, “Aircrafts etc serve Hindu food…” Singhvi said, “It has to be fixed here. FSSAI rules say you have to mention only calorie value and vegetarian non-vegetarian.” “And also the licence,” said Justice Bhati. “You cannot exclude lakhs of people like this… this is India,” said Singhvi. “But broadly these are also for hygiene standards?” said Justice Bhati. “When the matter comes up, the court can deal with it separately. In rural areas, people do not even have licences,” said Singhvi.

‘The decision targets secularism and brotherhood’

Meanwhile, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said, ‘This is a decision targeting secularism and brotherhood. Ahmadi was appearing on behalf of DU professors Apoorvanand and Aakar Patel. Ahmadi said, ‘It violates many laws. It is a form of untouchability and restricts trade.’ Justice Roy said, ‘Is anyone appearing from the other side?’

After this the court gave its verdict. The court said, heard the lawyers of the petitioners. The challenge here is about the instructions issued by SSP Muzaffarnagar Police and the threat of action against him/her. The court issued notice on all these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The next hearing will be on Friday. Till then this order has been stayed. Along with this, the Supreme Court has sought a reply on the notice from the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh.

Share on:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *