.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
Kanwar Yatra nameplate order is 'exclusion by identity', Supreme Court told
The Supreme Court was on Monday told that the Uttar Pradesh government's order asking shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names is "exclusion by identity". The court was also informed that the order was "camouflaged" and that it amounted to "economic death" of small-scale shopkeepers.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti heard the case filed by an NGO, the Association of Protection of Civil Rights, challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's order.
CU Singh, an advocate appearing for the NGO, said the order had no statutory backing and that it did not serve any purpose.
"It has never been done before. It has no statutory backing. No law gives Police Commissioner the power to do it. The directive on every tea stalls and other roadside shops giving names of employees and owners does not serve any purpose," Singh said.
On the other hand, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the order was issued without any authority of law and called it a "camouflage".
"It is a camouflaged order for Kanwar Yatra. Violators will be fined if they do not show their names. We are talking about thousands of kilometres. Bulk of these shops are tea stalls and some belong to fruit shop owners. This is economic death," Singhvi said.
"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 Constitution," he added.
Singhvi said that yatras have been happening for decades and people of all religions were helping Kanwariyas during their yatra.
"It's about identity inclusion. The order was issued without any authority of law. What can be the rationale behind this nexus between aims and objects of giving a name and eating at restaurants?" he said.
Last week, the Muzaffarnagar Police directed all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their owners' names. Later, the Yogi Adityanath-led UP government extended the order across the state. The Uttarakhand government also followed suit.
Mahua Moitra's plea argued that the order violated multiple constitutional rights.
"The impugned directives, issued with the alleged goal of respecting pilgrims’ dietary preferences and maintaining law and order, are manifestly arbitrary, issued without any determining principle, violate multiple constitutional rights, and outsource the State’s obligation of maintaining law and order upon the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of society,” the petition reads.
Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand and former Amnesty India head Aakar Patel have also approached the Supreme Court against the UP and Uttarakhand governments.
The pleas further argued that the advisory, which is then forcibly enforced, is an overreach of state authority and that the public notice and its enforcement are without the authority of law.
The move has invited a backlash, not only from the opposition but also from some of the NDA allies.
The opposition has alleged that the order on eateries is "communal and divisive" and intended to target Muslims and Scheduled Castes by forcing them to reveal their identity. However, the BJP maintains that the step has been taken keeping in mind law and order issues and the religious sentiments of pilgrims.
As the budget session of Parliament is set to begin today, the matter is likely to be brought up in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
At an all-party meeting on Sunday, several opposition parties, including the Congress, DMK, SP, and AAP, criticised the order and made it clear that they would raise the issue in the two Houses. They demanded that the government should allow a discussion on it in Parliament.
BJP allies JDU and RLD have also joined the chorus for the withdrawal of the controversial order.
