top of page
Search

Why S.C Halts Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand And Madhya Pradesh Orders ?

  • Writer: leadindia400
    leadindia400
  • Mar 22
  • 4 min read

Justice Hrishikesh Roy And Svn Bhatti Give The Order By Issuing The Writ Petitions To The Government Of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand And Madhya Pradesh After Hearing The Plea From Ngo – Association For Protection Of Civil Rights, Tmc Mp Mahua Moitra And Political Commentator And Delhi University Academic Apporvanand Jha And Columnist Akar Patel. In The Order Supreme Court Held That “Until The Returnable Date, We Deem It Appropriate To Pass Interim Order Prohibiting The Enforcement Of The Impugned Directives. In Other Words, The Food Sellers (Including Dhaba Owners, Restaurant, Shops, Fruits, And Vegetable Sellers, Hawkers, Etc) May Be Required To Display The Kind Of Food They Are Selling To The Kanwariyas. But They Must Not Be Forced To Display The Names/Identities Of Owners And Also The Employees, Deployed In Their Respectively Establishments. It Is Ordered Accordingly”


The Kanwar Yatra Is An Annual Hindu Pilgrimage Dedicated To Lord Shiva, Observed In Northern India. But As On 17 July, 2024 The Muzaffarnagar Police Station Ordered All Eateries To Display The Name Of The Owners, Employees As Well As Their Mobile Numbers Along The Kanwar Route, Which May Cause The Threat To The Owners And Their Employees. After The Muzaffarnagar Police Issued The Order, The U.P. Government Extended It Statewide On 19 July.


The Petitioners Argued That The Order Issued By The Government Of U.P And Uttarakhand Are Problematic In Multiple Ways. They Argued That The Orders Threatened To Create A Religious Divide And Infringe Upon The Fundamental Rights Guaranteed To All Citizens Under Articles 14, 15, 17, And 19.


The Petitioners Claim That The Order Violates The Right To Privacy Of The Owners And Workers Of Eateries. By Requiring The Display Of Their Names, The Order Exposes These Individuals To Potential Danger And Makes Them Vulnerable Targets. The Petitioners Emphasize That This Forced Disclosure Of Personal Information Not Only Jeopardizes The Safety And Security Of The Individual But Also Disrupts The Harmony Within The Community. They Believe That Such Measures Are Unnecessary And Could Lead To Increased Tensions, Thereby Undermining The Principles Of Equality And Privacy Enriched In The Constitution. Consequently, They Seek Relief From The Enforcement Of These Directives Through The Court’s Intervention.


Political Commentator Apoorvanand And Activist Aakar Patel Filed Plea Asking The Court To Intervene And Have The States Withdraw The Orders. They Argued That The Directives Promote Discrimination Based On Caste And Religion And Serve No Legitimate Purpose. Meanwhile, Tmc Mp Mahua Moitra’s Petition Accused The Uttar Pradesh Government Of Specifically Targeting Muslim-Owned Businesses. Moreover, His Plea Argued That The Directives Place Unreasonable Restrictions On The Business Activities Of Eatery Owners And Food Sellers, Infringing On Their Rights To Freely Pursue Any Occupation, Trade, Or Business As Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(G) Of Indian Constitution.


Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, Representing The Petitioners, Argued Before The Court That The Directives Should Be Considered Formal Orders Because They Were Issued As Public Notice Under The Authority Of Muzaffarnagar Police. Ahmadi Pointed Out That These Directives, Implemented In Uttar Pradesh And Uttarakhand, Require Not Only The Display Of The Owner’s Name But Also The Name Of Workers. He Highlighted The Impact Of These Directives Has Extended Even To Madhya Pradesh, Where The Kanwar Yatra Does Not Occur, Showing A Broader, Unintended Reach.


Senior Advocate A.M Singhvi, Also Representing The Petitioner, Argued That The Petitioner, Argued That The Directives Lacked A “Rational Nexus” And Served No Meaningful Purpose. He Emphasized That Requiring The Display Of Names Of Employees And Owners Does Not Contribute To Any Constructive Outcome. He Contended That The Police Order Might Be Driven By An Attempt To Create Communal Divisions Rather Than Addressing Any Genuine Issue. He Criticized The Move As An Unnecessary Measure That Could Potentially Inflate Tensions Between Different Groups.


Singhvi Also Argued That The Directives Lacks Legal Authority. He Stated “There Is No Law That Grants Police Commissioner The Power To Issue Such Directives”. He Emphasized That The Order Does Not Have Any Statutory Backing And Is Therefore Invalid. So, Without Any Legal Basis The Order Of Police Commissioner Cannot Be Enforced.


When Justice Hrishikesh Roy Asked If There Was Any Official Order From The Government, Singhvi Replied That It Was A “Camouflaged Order”. He Explained That Even Though The Directives Were Not Issued As Formal Order, They Were Being Enforced Strictly And Owners And Workers Are Unfairly Targeted. Justice Bhatti Interrupted, Advising That The Issue Should Not Be Exaggerated Beyond The Actual Situation On The Ground. He Emphasized That Orders Have Three Basic Aspects: “Safety, Standard And Secularism”. The Judge Pointed Out All The Three Dimensions Are Equally Important And Must Be Considered. He Stressed The Need To Balance These Aspects Without Overstating The Problems. The Focus Should Be On Understanding How These Elements Work Together In The Implementation Of The Orders Rather Than Making The Situation Seem Worse Than It Actually Is.


One Can Talk To A Lawyer From Lead India For Any Kind Of Legal Support. In India, Free Legal Advice Online Can Be Obtained At Lead India. Along With Receiving Free Legal Advice Online, One Can Also Ask Questions To The Experts Online Free Through Lead India.


Visit Us: — www.leadindia.law

Call Us: +91–8800788535

Email: – care@leadindia.law

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page