Kanwar Yatra Case: Supreme Court Extension and Key Considerations

Background of the Case

• Directive Issued: On July 17, 2024, the Muzaffarnagar district police in Uttar Pradesh issued a directive requiring eateries and shops along the Kanwariya pilgrimage route to display the names of their owners and employees. This measure aimed to prevent confusion among Kanwariyas, who follow a strictly vegetarian diet.
• Challenge: The directive was challenged in the Supreme Court. Petitioners argued that it discriminated against Muslim-owned businesses by forcing them to disclose their religious identities, which could lead to economic repercussions and targeting.

Key Takeaways from the Hearing

• No Government Order
• The Supreme Court noted that the Muzaffarnagar police directive lacked backing from any formal government order. The Court observed that such directions should ideally be issued under relevant legislation like the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which govern food safety and vendor regulation.
• Limits to Police Action
• The Court stressed that the police cannot exceed their legal authority without a specific legislative or executive mandate. The petitioners claimed that the police’s actions might have overstepped their bounds, as penal actions were reportedly taken against businesses.
• Question of Discrimination
• The Court did not address the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioners. These included claims that the directive violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution by discriminating based on religion and supported untouchability, prohibited under Article 17. The petitioners argued that this led to an economic boycott of businesses owned by or employing people from minority backgrounds.

Legal Basis for Police Directions

• Lack of Specific Law: The Muzaffarnagar police did not cite a specific law for their directive. Generally, in urgent situations, orders are issued under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prevents public disturbances. However, Section 144 is applied by Magistrates, not directly by police without legal backing.
• SC Guidelines: The Supreme Court’s 2012 guidelines on Section 144 require that actions under this provision must be within legal authority and reasonable. The Court will examine whether the police’s directive falls under any legal authority and if it is reasonable.

Police Directions and Shopkeepers' Right to Privacy

• Privacy Considerations: The Court will assess whether the directive infringes on the right to privacy as recognized in the 2017 Right to Privacy judgment. This includes:
• Existing Law: Whether there is a law that supports such restrictions.
• Legitimate Aim: Whether avoiding a law-and-order situation is a legitimate state goal.
• Proportionality: Whether the directive is a proportionate measure, balancing the restriction against the government’s aim.

Discrimination Concerns

• Article 15(1) of the Constitution: This article prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The Court will evaluate if the directive’s requirement to display names, potentially revealing religious or caste identities, constitutes discrimination against shopkeepers and employees.
• Article 19(1)(g): The Court may also consider if the directive violates the right to practice any profession, trade, or business. Requiring businesses to disclose names might affect their operations and could be seen as a form of undue restriction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's extension of the stay on the directive issued by the Muzaffarnagar police will continue until the next hearing. Key issues include whether the directive had legal backing, whether it was reasonable, and if it infringes on privacy and non-discrimination rights. The Court will also need to assess whether the directive's purpose of preventing confusion during the Kanwar Yatra justifies the potential impact on businesses and individual rights.