On July 20, 2024, at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh Government ordered the removal of a shop banner displaying a shopkeeper’s name for the stationing Kanwariyas on Kanwar Marg.
In an interim order passed on July 22, the Supreme Court restrained the enforcement of directions by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Governments to display names of owners of eateries and their employees along Kawar Yatra routes.
Their Lordships Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti opined that food vendors may be allowed to advertise what they sell but not through their names, tribe or their members’.
The Bench wanted to know from Ms. Moitra if the orders mandating restaurants on the route of Kanwar Yatra to carry names of owners have come in writing from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Governments.
“Any formal order issued by these State Governments,” asked bench.
Mr. Singhvi responded that it is against Constitution, as per the act made by state governments like UP and UK excluding some people in terms of identity politics.
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Delhi etc., are among states which will receive summons for intervention in Kawar yatra case issued today; other states en-route this yatra have been suo motu received same. The court will hear this matter on Friday.
The petition was moved by Association For Protection Of Civil Rights represented by senior counsel CU Singh and two others were filed by TMC MP Mahua Moitra represented by senior advocate AM Singhvi as well as academic Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel.
According to them such directives assail democracy’s secular fabric undermine principles espoused in constitution’s preamble infringe basic rights such as equality caste non-discrimination dignity that characterize human life
These directions resultantly lead many employees working at shops along Kawar Yatra path being laid off thus contradicting their fundamental rights to earn living, trade or do business.
The authorities could, however, ensure that Kawariyas received vegetarian food prepared and served as per sanitary standards and their wishes but they cannot curtail any freedom without law backing them.
They further maintained that the scope of the directions is across several states and these are required to be dealt with by the Supreme Court at once.
