The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments over the order directing eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display names of owners. The top court also stayed the order which asked the shop owners on Kanwar Yatra route to display names.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti heard the matter and gave state government time till Friday to file responses.
While dictating order, the bench noted that the challenge is to the directives issued by the SSP Muzaffarnagar Police on July 17 and the threat of police action in the event of non-adherence to such directives.
The bench further took note of the arguments of petitioners that the authority may issue orders under Food Security Act, but powers conferred on competent authority can't be usurped by police without any formal order supported by law.
"The argument is that their rights would also be affected under Art 19(1)(g)...It is permissible for authorities to ensure that Kanwariyas are served veg food, conforming to their preferences maintaining hygienic standards...The authority may issue orders under Food Security Act...but powers conferred on competent authority can't be usurped by police without any formal order supported by law," the bench noted in order.
The bench further noted that the order of the UP government above suggests that as the kanwariyas in the holy month of Shravan while undertaking the journey to collect water from the river Ganga abstain from certain food items in their diet.
"This can be understood as abstaining from consuming any non-vegetarian food or in the event of those who follow strict vegetarianism, renouncing even onion and garlic. If the intention is to provide only vegetarian food to Kanwarias, the directives as given requiring the food business operators to display the names of their owners and employees is contented to be contrary to the constitutional and legal norms prevalent in our country," the bench noted in order while jotting down arguments of petitioners.
The petitioners challenging the order told the court that compelling all proprietors to display their names and address, and also of their staff, would hardly achieve the intended objective of ensuring vegetarian food is served to Kanwariyas.
They argued that without any support of provisions, if the directive is permitted to be enforced, it will infringe the secular character of the republic, which will also have the effect of violation of rights under Art 15(1), 17, and 19 (g) of Constitution.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners told the court that such an order has never been passed before.
"It has no statutory backing. No law gives the Police Commissioner the power to do it. The directive is that every haath-gaadi, redi, tea-stall, etc shall be given names of employees and owners...this does not serve any purpose...There is a chain Shiva Dhaba. It has given chains all over India. Anybody can be running it!" Petitioners argued.
When Justice Roy asked if it was a formal order of the government, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for petitioners told the court that it is a "camouflaged order."
"Your Lordship is harsh on people who violate, harsher when people are too clever and camouflage," Singhvi appealed to the bench.
Justice Roy then asked if there was an element of coercion?
Singhvi replied that violators will be fined if they do not obey.
"We are talking about thousands of kilometers...bulk of them are very small tea-stalls or fruit shop owners...this is economic death!" Singhvi said.
He further said that the larger issue is much more important.
"You go to a restaurant depending on the menu, not who is serving. The idea of directive is exclusion by identity. This is not the republic we envisaged in the Constitution," Singhvi added.
Justice Bhatti at this point said, "let us not narrate the situation in such a way that it's more exaggerated than what is on ground...it has 3 dimensions: 1) safety, 2) standard and 3) secularism. All 3 are equally important."