On 22nd July, the Supreme Court of India gave interim relief to the petitioners against the Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments’ directives to prominently display the names of the owners of the shop and carts. While Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments issued directives for the Kanwar Yatra Path, Madhya Pradesh’s Ujjain administration gave directives for the shops and carts outside the Mahakal Temple.
During the argument, an interesting trivia came to light. The matter was heard by Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti. It was mentioned by Justice Bhatti that he used to go to a vegetarian hotel operated by a Muslim over the one operated by a Hindu citing ‘hygiene standards’.
He said, “Without disclosing the city’s name I will share it with you. In Kerala, there were two vegetarian hotels, one by Hindu and one by Muslim. I went to the latter because he was maintaining international standards. He was a Dubai returnee. But he displayed everything on the board.” [The quote is a mix of X posts made by Live Law and Bar & Bench]
Singhvi: 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.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) July 22, 2024
Justice Roy: What is the expectation of the Kanwariyas? They worship Shiva, yes? Do they expect the food to be cooked and served and…
In short, Justice Bhatti made a firm choice based on the information displayed on a board to choose a Muslim hotelier over a Hindu hotelier because the former was maintaining “International Standards” of hygiene. Justice Bhatti had the choice of selecting the hotelier with a complete set of information including his religion.
J Bhatti: There is one veg hotel run by a Hindu, and one run by a Muslim…in Kerala…As the judge of that state, I used to go the one run by the Muslim. He was maintaining international standards#SupremeCourt #KanwarYatra
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) July 22, 2024
Now the question arises, if Justice Bhatti can have the choice and clarity while choosing the restaurant, why did the two-judge bench, which he was part of, deny the same right to Hindu pilgrims performing Kanwar Yatra? For those who are unaware, devotees performing Kanwar Yatra are supposed to eat only Satvik food. They must follow certain rules which they may break in case enough information is not available.
The interim stay imposed by the Supreme Court was based on the contention that the directives were “discriminatory” and would cause untouchability. Interestingly, on social media, it has been argued that Kanwariyas would also avoid eating at restaurants run by Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes OBCs etc. One may ask what proof or evidence they provided. The answer is none.
Anyway, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners further contended that the display of the name itself cannot be seen as a measure to ensure vegetarian food. Furthermore, any such directive coming without any support from the Constitutional or legal provisions would infringe the secular character and Articles 14, 15(1) and 17 of the Constitution. While these contentions were accepted by the apex court, there was no thought of mind implying the fact that Hindus too have the right to choose where they want to eat or buy anything.
Furthermore, while discussing the above aspects, Justice Bhatti also mentioned that “some non-vegetarians” prefer Halal-certified meat. Halal is a religious term used for meat produced as per Sharia law or Islamic laws. Only a Muslim can ensure the meat is Halal. Judges were aware that food choices are prominently dependent on religion. Without taking the name of the Muslims, Justice Bhatti pointed out that Muslims make an informed choice to choose Halal meat over Jhatka or unlabelled. How do they know that the meat is Halal? Meat shop owners mention it in bold letters.
Justice Bhatti: We understand the distinction between good and bad here. Some non-vegetarians prefer halal certified meat. What I see is that you previously mentioned you couldn’t answer my brother’s question with a simple yes or no.
— LawChakra (@LawChakra) July 22, 2024
AM Singhvi: It is mostly yes. They have…
Halal meat is so widely available and has become the first choice of famous food chains that it is extremely difficult for Hindus and Sikhs to find Jhatka meat. They have to make extra effort to ask if the meat is Jhatka or not. As Halal meat is butchered only by a Muslim, it leads to a loss of jobs for Hindu and Sikh butchers. Only a few Butchers of Hindu or Sikh community are left but it has never been questioned. Hindus are in majority in India. The population of meat-eating Hindus surpass Muslims. Still, Hindus are forced intentionally or unintentionally to eat Halal meat. In this case, what about the rights of Hindus? Are they not valid?
One needs two hands to clap. Certain rules about dietary habits and choices cannot be imposed continuously in a biased manner favouring only one community. Hindus must get the right to choose where they want to eat and from whom they want to buy fruits or any other item. It has to be based on the information publically available, preferably prominently written on boards outside shops and carts.
There is another aspect of the order. The Supreme Court pointed out that a competent food authority should have passed the order in the matter. 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 on the competent authority cannot be usurped by the Police, without legal foundation.” In short, if FSSAI issues directive to prominently display names of the owners and workers at the restaurant or carts, the apex court will not have a problem with it.
Sadly, there was no one from any of the three governments, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, to represent the matter in the Supreme Court even though all three governments have counsels on payroll in the apex court. The next date of hearing in the matter is 26th July.
