New Delhi — The Supreme Court of India has stayed a controversial Uttar Pradesh government order requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners and employees. This decision, effective until Friday, comes amid concerns that the directive could incite communal tensions and discrimination.
The Uttar Pradesh police issued the order mandating food joints along the Kanwar Yatra route to prominently display the names of their owners and employees. According to authorities, this measure was intended to prevent confusion among the pilgrims and avert potential law and order issues. However, the opposition, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, condemned the move, likening it to Apartheid in South Africa and the boycott of Jewish businesses in Nazi Germany.
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
The bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti paused the enforcement of the directive, noting the potential implications and the threat of police action for non-compliance. “Food sellers must not be forced to display names of owners and staff,” the court ordered, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the secular character of the Republic of India.
Justice Roy remarked that while authorities could ensure vegetarian food was served to conform with the preferences of the pilgrims and maintain hygienic standards, compelling proprietors to display names and addresses of their staff would not achieve the intended objective. “Without support of provisions, if the directive is permitted to be enforced… it will infringe the secular character of the Republic of India,” Justice Roy added.
Legal and Social Reactions
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the petitioners, argued against the directive, stating, “The idea of this directive is exclusion by identity. This is not the Republic of India we envisaged in the Constitution.” He highlighted the coercive nature of the directive, noting news reports of fines being imposed on non-compliant establishments.
The petitioners also pointed out the potential for increased communal divide, with minorities being identified and subjected to boycott. “There are a lot of ‘pure vegetarian’ restaurants run by Hindus… but they may have Muslim employees. Can I say I won’t eat there? Because food is somehow ‘touched’ by them?” Singhvi questioned, illustrating the directive’s divisive implications.
The UP police defended the directive as a voluntary measure intended to maintain law and order during the yatra. They asserted that the directive aimed to ensure transparency and prevent future allegations that could lead to disturbances. However, the petitioners contended that statements from high-level officials, including UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, suggested otherwise.
The directive has faced strong opposition from various quarters, including BJP allies such as Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and union ministers Jayant Chaudhary and Chirag Paswan. These leaders have voiced concerns over the directive’s potential to incite communal tensions and disrupt social harmony.
