Supreme Court Rules Hotels Along Kanwar Yatra Route Must Display Licences

Considering that the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage of this year is ending today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22) refused to go into the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand authorities to the eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes which would enable the pilgrims to know the details of the owners.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh disposed of the interlocutory applications filed challenging the mandate issued by the authorities. The bench also clarified that the sellers must display their licenses and registration certificates as required by the law.

\"We are told that today is the last day of the Yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective Hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements. We make it clear that we are not going into the other issues argued. The application is closed,\" the bench observed in the order.

The applications sought a stay of all directives requiring public disclosure of ownership/employee identity of food vendors along Kanwar Yatra routes in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. It is argued that the directions are contrary to the interim order passed by the Supreme Court last year, which held that sellers can't be forced to disclose their identities.

The applicants, Professor Apoorvanand and activist Aakar Patel, contend that to circumvent the Court's order, the Government authorities have issued new directions this year mandating the display of QR codes on all eateries along the Kanwar route, which the pilgrims can scan to know the names of the owners. According to them, the direction is to further religious discrimination.

The applications were moved in the writ petitions filed in 2024, challenging last year's directions to display the names of owners and staff. TMC MP Mahua Moitra, the NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights were the other petitioners.

From the hearing

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the petitioners, submitted that the authorities should have sought the modification of the Court's order of last year before issuing the QR code directives. He questioned the States' stand that the directions were intended to ensure quality service. \"How does the surname of the owner ensure good service? The only intent is to cause religious profiling,\" he submitted. If somebody is selling meat items after advertising the sale of vegetarian food, that is problematic; but how can the identity of the person be offensive, he asked.

Referring to certain media reports regarding alleged attacks on certain shops, Singhvi said, \"When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace.\"

\"This is the most divisive initiative, to ostracise people during the yatra, as if these people are untouchables,\" Singhvi stated. He contended that the directions were unconstitutional for creating divisiveness based on identity, violating the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The senior counsel termed the direction a \"direct assault\" on the principle of secularism.

Justice Sundresh, at this juncture, pointed out that people have different food preferences and said that a vegetarian person may prefer to go to only a place serving exclusively vegetarian food, especially during a religious pilgrimage.

\"I am basically agnostic. I have no problem at all. But there are some who will not even touch certain foods,\" Justice Sundresh observed.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the directions are as per the requirements of the FSSAI regulations. He said that there were some dhabas, which used to sell meat items, misrepresenting that they were selling only vegetarian foods, which led to offending many devotees' sentiments.

Countering this, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for other petitioners, submitted that during this period, the eateries only sell vegetarian items as per the local regulations.

Justice Sundresh, at this point, opined that the customer must have the choice of knowing if a place was exclusively selling vegetarian items throughout.

\"If a hotel is running as a vegetarian hotel all through, then the question of indicating names and other things will not arise. But if only for the purpose of yatra, somebody stops serving non-veg and starts selling veg, the consumer should know. To that extent, consumers should have that flexibility. If one hotel was earlier serving non-veg, and for the purpose of better business they serve only veg during the yatra, that will be an issue for the consideration of the consumer. The choice is of the consumer,\" Justice Sundresh observed.

Ahmadi submitted that for the customer's choice, all that should matter is whether the place is at present selling only veg items; whether the place was earlier selling non-veg is not a matter for disclosure. Justice Sundresh however disagreed, saying \"customer is the king.\"

Ahmadi wondered what the necessity was of revealing the identities of the owners and the staff.

\"The mandate for disclosure of the names is to understand the religious identity,\" Ahmadi said. If he is to start a business with a neutral name \"Bombay Mart\", as per the new directive, the name should be displayed as \"Bombay Mart Huzefa\", the senior counsel illustrated.

\"What happens on the ground is...when this sort of a message goes...if religion is to be considered as a factor, this is promoting untouchability through the backdoor,\" Ahmadi said. \"Marx has said religion is the opium of the masses,\" Justice Sundresh commented.

Justice Sundresh clarified that the bench was trying to find a middle path to balance the consumer's right to know while ensuring that there is no discrimination against any vendor based on religion.

Rohatgi, for the State of UP, countered the petitioners' argument that there was a violation of the 2024 order. He submitted that the 2024 order was an ad-interim order issued under last year's circumstances. He reiterated that the directions are drawn from the central law, the FSSAI Act.

\"These regulations are framed under a central law. It is not state of UP. Last year we had a law and order situation where the kanwariyas were ransacking from dhaba because of these kind of issues. That is why the police authority issued that order. Last year an ad interim order was passed without hearing us. I am only following a central law that is applicable to the entire country and not just for Kanwar Yatra,\" Rohatgi argued.

\"As per the regulations under the Act they require photo identity. Why are you scared of showing your name? I don't understand,\" Rohatgi said. Dy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi appeared for the State of Uttarakhand defending the State's directions.

Another counsel submitted that the real issue was dhabas named \"Shiva Dhaba\" or \"Parvati Dhaba\" being run by Muslim persons. Without entertaining this submission, Justice Sundresh said, \"Please, don't embarrass us like this.\"

The bench said that it was not going into the contentious issues as the matter has become infructuous due to the end of the Yatra.

After the bench dictated the order, Ahmadi sought for a specific clarification that names need not be disclosed. \"The name of the owner and the QR code need not be disclosed. It has no backing in the law. Religious identity is sought to be exposed,\" he submitted.

\"We have said that we are not going into it. If you want to challenge it, go before the High Court,\" Justice Sundresh said.

Cases : APOORVANAND JHA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(Crl.) No. 328/2024 | ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR) v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.W.P.(C) No. 463/2024 | MAHUA MOITRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS W.P.(C) No. 488/2024 and connected matters.