The Supreme Court has extended the interim order maintaining the status quo on directives from the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments that mandate eateries along the Kanwariya pilgrim route to display the names of their owners and staff. Petitioners argue the directives could threaten religio
The Supreme Court has extended the interim order maintaining the status quo on directives from the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments that require eateries along the Kanwariya pilgrim route to display the names of their owners and staff. The matter was being considered by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan, in response to petitions from the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), TMC MP Mahua Moitra, Professor Apoorvanand, and columnist Aakar Patel. Despite the submission of a counter-affidavit by Uttar Pradesh, the court extended its previous stay on the directives due to procedural delays.
Case Details:
- The bench was comprised of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and R Mahadevan presiding.
- Petitions by Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), TMC MP Mahua Moitra, Professor Apoorvanand, and columnist Aakar Patel.
- The matter was adjourned earlier as the counter-affidavit from Uttar Pradesh had not been recorded.
- Despite objections from state authorities, the interim order staying the directives was extended.
- The case was not heard today but is expected to be re-listed for hearing before August 19, during the ongoing Kanwar Yatra.
Background of events:
- An annual pilgrimage by Shiva devotees known as Kanwarias.
- Devotees travel to key Hindu pilgrimage sites in Uttarakhand and Bihar to fetch holy water from the Ganges River.
- Issued on July 17, 2024, by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar.
- Statewide extension of the directive on July 19, 2024.
- Enforced rigorously across all districts in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
Petitions and Arguments:
- Petitioners:
- Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)
- TMC MP Mahua Moitra
- Professor Apoorvanand and Aakar Patel
- Arguments Against the Directives:
- Religious Divide: Petitioners argue the directives threaten religious harmony.
- Fundamental Rights: Alleged violation of rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the Indian Constitution.
- Right to Privacy: Claim that displaying names of owners and staff violates privacy and exposes them to potential danger.
Court Proceedings:
- On July 22, the Supreme Court issued notice to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi.
- The directives were stayed with an observation that eateries could display the type of food sold but should not be forced to display the names/identities of owners and staff.
