By D. Maan, Jadetimes News
Controversial Order to Display Owners' Names in Supreme Court of India Stays on Eateries
A controversial order, directing eateries to prominently display the name of the owner and the operator of the establishment, is stayed by the Supreme Court of India. The states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand both ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party issued this directive in view of the Kanwar Yatra, commencing Monday.
The order drew flak from opposition parties and even allies of the BJP, which said that the move unfairly targets Muslim owned establishments and could impact livelihoods. State authorities have said that the order was taken to ensure the maintenance of law and order. On Monday, however, the Supreme Court stayed the directive while hearing a batch of petitions against it. Here the judges ordered the eatery owners only have to show the names of items they serve.
The petitions, filed by civil society activists and opposition Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra, argued that the orders were religiously discriminatory and encouraged untouchability, which is illegal in India. But district authorities in Uttar Pradesh's Muzaffarnagar and Saharanpur districts issued orders to restaurants and eateries along the pilgrimage route to display their owners' names to avert "confusion" among devotees, who do not consume meat and alcohol during the pilgrimage.
The Kanwar Yatra is an annual pilgrimage conducted during the holy month of Sawan according to the Hindu calendar. Thousands of pilgrims walk for days or even weeks to religious sites along the holy Ganges River to collect water and offer it in offerings to the Hindu deity Shiva. For the most part, young men, these pilgrims pass through states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, and Rajasthan on their way to and from temple towns.
The general trend is to have some traffic restrictions and policemen to make sure everything is in control. But, with the huge number of young men going across cities, often walking along main roads with a very minimal crowd control as has been witnessed in past years, incidents of violence and vandalism have been reported. Responding to opposition parties' criticism, the order was expanded by the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh to include the entire state during the pilgrimage. Earlier this year, Adityanath had also prohibited open sale and purchase of meat along the pilgrimage routes as a mark of "respect" for the devotees.
Similarly, the Uttarakhand state and Ujjain city in Madhya Pradesh issued orders to display the names of owners and employees on their board in front of the restaurants. Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami referred to past instances of criminal incidents involving hotel and eatery operators hiding their true identities and said the order was issued to prevent such cases in future.
The intervention of the Supreme Court spotlights an emerging dialectic process between religious practice and the rights of business owners, with a lurking potential for discriminatory practices, all in the garb of maintenance of public order.
Opposition Criticizes Divisive Order to Display Owners' Names at Eateries
Opposition parties have denounced the recent directive requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners, calling it "divisive" and accusing the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of facilitating an economic boycott of Muslims. The issue was raised during an all party meeting held on Sunday ahead of the budget session of parliament, according to news reports.
Even BJP allies have criticized the order. KC Tyagi, spokesperson for the BJP's ally Janata Dal (United), pointed out that no such order exists in Bihar, where an even larger Kanwar Yatra takes place, and urged the BJP to reconsider. Chirag Paswan, chief of the Lok Janshakti Party, another BJP ally, stated, “Whenever there is such divide in the name of caste or religion, I absolutely do not either support it or encourage it."
In Muzaffarnagar, a district scarred by deadly Hindu Muslim riots in 2013 that left at least 60 people dead, many local vendors and shop owners perceived the order as an attempt to alienate Muslims. Along the highway from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, numerous shops, eateries, and roadside food stalls displayed the names of their owners and workers in big, bold red letters, with some proprietors claiming they were coerced by the police to comply.
Authorities, however, insisted that eatery owners in the district had voluntarily adhered to the order. Vakeel Ahmad, owner of Lover’s Tea Point in Muzaffarnagar's Khatauli area, recounted how he was pressured by the police to rename his shop to clearly indicate his Muslim identity. He eventually put up a signboard reading "Vakeel Ahmad," despite finding it distressing to change the decade old identity of his shop.
Other business owners shared similar stories. One food stall owner removed four of his Muslim employees, including his manager, to avoid controversy. A Hindu eatery owner alleged that police visited his shop to inquire about Muslim employees and advised him against hiring Muslims. Another restaurant owner mentioned that a Muslim employee left voluntarily to prevent causing trouble for others.
The pressure on restaurant owners has been mounting since last year when a local Hindu religious leader began demanding the closure of Muslim owned eateries named after Hindu gods and goddesses. Consequently, many such establishments have shut down or been rented out to Hindus.
Despite the controversy, some pilgrims setting out on the Kanwar Yatra expressed indifference to the religious identity of shop owners. Vishal Bhola, a pilgrim, remarked, “It doesn’t matter if the shop belongs to a Hindu or a Muslim. Everybody here respects a pilgrim. While buying something, we never look for the name of the person selling it."
The Supreme Court's recent decision to temporarily halt the directive underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between religious practices and the rights of business owners, as well as the potential for discriminatory practices under the guise of maintaining public order.
