Supreme Court issues interim stay on UP govt’s Kanwar Yatra restaurants ‘nameplate’ directive

The Supreme Court of India has issued an interim stay on the Uttar Pradesh government’s directive requiring shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the “names of owners and employees”. This decision marks a significant intervention by the judiciary in a contentious matter related to religious pilgrimage practices.

The court, led by Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, responded to several petitions challenging the state government’s order. The directive, which mandated shopkeepers to disclose personal information, was seen as an undue imposition and raised concerns of “exclusion by identity”. As a result, the court has temporarily barred the enforcement of this requirement. While food vendors along the Kanwar Yatra route must still provide details about the type of food they offer to the devotees, they are not required to publicly disclose their names or those of their employees.

Kanwar Yatra: Religious Significance and Controversies

The Kanwar Yatra is a major religious pilgrimage observed during the holy month of Sawan. Devotees participate by carrying a Kanwar—a bamboo pole with pitchers filled with Ganga Jal—as they journey to Lord Shiva temples. The pilgrimage is particularly prominent on the Haridwar Route, where devotees collect Ganga Jal from Haridwar and transport it to temples such as the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple in Rishikesh and the Pura Mahadeva Temple in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.

This year, the Kanwar Yatra commenced with heightened attention due to the Uttar Pradesh government’s controversial directive. The requirement for shopkeepers to disclose their identities was intended to enhance safety and transparency. However, critics argue that the measure could exacerbate communal tensions. This perspective is supported by various activists and political figures, including Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, who filed a plea against the directive.

Moitra and other petitioners, such as the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, and activist Aakar Patel, contended that the mandate was not only intrusive but could also lead to increased discord among communities. Their concerns were echoed in the Supreme Court’s ruling, which highlighted the potential negative implications of the order.

Other States’ Responses and Measures

The controversy surrounding the Uttar Pradesh directive is part of a broader trend observed in several states. For instance, Uttarakhand has implemented similar requirements for shopkeepers and hawkers along the Kanwar Yatra route. Additionally, in Ujjain, a city governed by the BJP, the municipal corporation has mandated that shop owners display their names and mobile numbers outside their establishments. The rules are enforced with fines of Rs 2,000 for first-time offenders and Rs 5,000 for repeat violations.

Despite claims that these measures are intended to improve safety and accountability, they have faced criticism for potentially targeting specific communities. Ujjain Mayor Mukesh Tatwal has asserted that the rules are not aimed at any particular group and are solely for enhancing transparency and security during the pilgrimage.

The Supreme Court’s interim stay on the Uttar Pradesh directive reflects the judiciary’s role in balancing administrative measures with individual rights and community sensitivities. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting personal privacy while addressing legitimate concerns about public safety.

As the Kanwar Yatra progresses, the temporary halt on the directive provides relief to shopkeepers and hawkers along the route. However, the broader debate over the necessity and implications of such regulations continues to unfold, highlighting the complexities of managing religious events in a diverse and pluralistic society.

The ongoing legal and political discourse surrounding the Kanwar Yatra directive illustrates the delicate interplay between state regulations and religious freedoms. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of judicial oversight in safeguarding individual rights amidst administrative efforts aimed at enhancing public safety.

You might also be interested in: UP Police face criticism over Kanwar Yatra Rule, opposition calls it “Like Nazi Germany”