SC Judge Shares Experience Of Dining At Muslim-Run Veg Hotel During Kanwar Hearing

The Supreme Court on Monday, temporarily halted the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments’ directive requiring shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names. The Court stated that while food vendors and hawkers should not be compelled to reveal their names, they may need to indicate the type of food being offered to Kanwariyas.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti issued notices to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh.

“Until the returnable date, having regard to the discussion, we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, the food sellers… hawkers, etc. may be required to display the kind of food they are serving to Kanwariyas but they must not be forced to disclose the names,” the bench said in its order.

During the hearing, Justice Bhatti mentioned that he used to visit a restaurant run by a Muslim in Kerala for vegetarian food due to its adherence to international hygiene standards.

“I have my experience and knowledge when I was in Kerala. I may not state openly as I am a sitting judge of this court. Without disclosing the name of the city, there is a vegetarian hotel run by a Hindu. There is another vegetarian hotel run by a Muslim. As a judge of that state, I was going to the hotel run by a Muslim for vegetarian food. When it comes to food standards and safety, he was displaying everything. He had returned from Dubai. He maintained international standards of safety, cleanliness and hygiene. So it was my choice to go to that hotel,” Justice Bhatti said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, commented, “You chose by menu card and not name.”

The bench was reviewing several petitions challenging the order.

They inquired with Singhvi whether any formal order had been issued. Singhvi responded that a “camouflaged” order had been enacted, mandating shop owners to display their names.

Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, argued that no law grants the police commissioner the authority to issue such an order.

The bench subsequently advised Singhvi to avoid exaggeration, noting that the orders could also address “safety and hygiene” concerns.

In response, Singhvi pointed out that people of various faiths have been assisting Kanwariyas for a long time.

The order faced opposition not only from the Opposition but also from the BJP-led government’s allies, including the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) and JD(U).

The Opposition labeled the order as divisive, while the BJP argued that it was implemented to safeguard religious sentiments and maintain law and order.