On 22nd July, the Supreme Court of India gave interim relief to petitioners against the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand directive asking shopkeepers, eateries, hotels, restaurants, dhabas etc to display their names and their workers’ names prominently outside the shop. The directive that was first given by Muzaffarnagar police was to ensure the Kanwariyas did not face any problems while choosing where to buy food items. However, the petitioners contended in the court that it was against the constitution and discriminatory promoting untouchability. As there was no one representing the states in the court, an interim order favouring the petitioners was passed. The next date of the hearing is 26th July.
While the petitioners as well as Muslim vendors saw the interim order as a victory of some sort, the Supreme Court has subtly shifted the onus onto the government to act within constitutional bounds. The court in its order, when read carefully, has left a window for legislative intervention.
The government’s directives and plea in the apex court
During the Kanwar Yatra, the Kanwariyas are supposed to follow strict dietary practices. They cannot eat non-vegetarian food, onion or garlic. In short, they have consumed only pure vegetarian or ‘Satvik’ food. There have been several cases in past years where Muslims were found to be running eateries in Hindu Gods and Goddesses’ names. Their identity would only be revealed when someone pays them using a QR code. In such cases, the chances of altercations were high which could lead to law and order problems.
Keeping this in mind, Muzaffarnagar police issued a directive ordering all eatery owners and cart owners to display their names and their employee names prominently to prevent any confusion among Kanwariyas. The move sparked controversy in UP. Chief Minister of UP, Yogi Adityanath, stepped in and issued orders to impose the direction across Kanwar Yatra Marg. Taking a cue from UP, the Uttarakhand government also issued a similar directive for Kanway Yatra. Ujjain administration also issued a similar directive for shops and carts around Mahakal temple.
Irked by the directive, several organisations and so-called activists and politicians including APCR and Mahua Moitra approached the Supreme Court of India which stayed the government’s orders till the next date of hearing.
What the court said
In its interim order, the Supreme Court of India prohibited the enforcement of the directive that mandated displaying names. The court cited concerns over its constitutional validity and potential to enable discrimination. However, the court said that the government and police can ask to display the food types being served so that there is transparency for Kanwariyas.
As the interim order was in favour of the petitioners, they took it as a victory. However, it is essential to do a deeper analysis of the order as the court has left room for the governments to act in the purview of the Constitution of India and established laws under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Notably, the court did not outright condemn the directives as prejudicial but highlighted that there were legal and constitutional inadequacies. The court, in a way, indicated that while the interim order halted the immediate enforcement of the directives, it left room for the government to address the issue through proper legislative channels.
The court said, “It is permissible for the authorities to ensure that the Kanwariyas are served vegetarian food conforming to the preferences and also ensure hygienic standards. In furtherance to this, the competent authority may perhaps issue orders under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Street Vendors Act, 2014. However, the legal powers vested in the competent authority cannot be usurped by the Police, without a legal foundation.
The court further added, “Until the returnable date, we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the impugned directives. In other words, the food sellers (including dhaba owners, restaurants, food 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.”
A win for liberals? Not entirely
The court did not explicitly label the police directives as discriminatory. Instead, the court emphasised the procedural propriety and the need for the directives to align with the established legal frameworks under the FSSAI Act and Street Vendors Act.
The ball is now in the government’s court. The interim order presented an opportunity for them to draft regulations that not only respect the Constitution of India but also address the long-standing concerns of the Kanwariyas and vegetarian Hindus. The governments need to ensure that on 26th July their representatives are present in the court to argue the matter. On the back end, they need to utilise provisions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Street Vendors Act, 2014, to offer a balanced non-biased solution so that this matter comes to an end once and for all.
