NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking a stay on the recent directive issued by the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, mandating all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh directed that hotel and eatery owners along the Kanwar Yatra route in the two States must display their licences and registration certificates in accordance with statutory requirements.
Refusing to stay the State governments' directives, the apex court was hearing a plea filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others.
The petitioners had sought directions to halt the implementation of the QR code mandate, citing concerns over privacy and religious profiling.
“We are told that today (Tuesday) is the last day of the yatra. In any case, it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per statutory requirements,” the Bench observed.
Last year, the Court had stayed similar directives issued by the BJP-ruled States of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, which had mandated eateries to display the names of their owners and staff.
During the course of the hearing, former Attorney General and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, defended the directions, asserting that they were issued in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations
He submitted that certain dhabas were allegedly misrepresenting themselves as vegetarian establishments while selling meat items, thereby offending the sentiments of devotees.
Countering this claim, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that during the Kanwar Yatra period, eateries are required to serve only vegetarian food as per local regulations. “These claims that non-vegetarian items are being sold are untrue,” he argued.
Observing that consumers must have access to correct information, the Bench noted, “The consumer is the king. If a hotel was earlier serving non-vegetarian food, and switches to only vegetarian food during the yatra to attract business, that is something the consumer has a right to know.”
Senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for the petitioners, argued that the QR code directives should have been preceded by a formal request to modify the Supreme Court’s previous order. He questioned the States’ rationale behind the directive, stating, “How does the surname of the owner ensure good service?
The only intent is to cause religious profiling.” However, he clarified that any eatery misrepresenting itself as vegetarian while selling meat was indeed problematic.
The application filed by Jha contended that the directive was contrary to the apex court's 2024 order, which held that food vendors along the Kanwar Yatra route could not be compelled to disclose their identity.
The plea sought directions to the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to immediately withdraw the QR code-based identification mandate and any other mechanism that could lead to disclosure of the owner’s identity or result in religious profiling of vendors.
“Direct the Respondents to file affidavits explaining how current mandates do not violate this Court's earlier stay or constitutional rights. The Court should direct that compliance with licensing requirements be restricted solely to those requirements and not include broad directives to display names and identity,” the application said.
Significantly, Kanwar Yatra 2025 is scheduled to take place from July 11 to August 9. Against this backdrop, the petitioners alleged that the States were circumventing the apex court's earlier stay order by reintroducing the same directives under the pretext of public safety and law and order.
The fresh directive mandates eateries to display QR codes that provide access to details about ownership. Citing media reports, Mr. Jha stated in his petition that the move effectively achieves the same unconstitutional objective through digital means, in wilful disobedience of the Court’s previous orders.
“State actions impacting privacy and dignity must satisfy the tests of legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and proportionality. The Respondents’ conduct fails all four, being neither authorised by statute nor necessary for the stated purpose, and wholly disproportionate in its discriminatory and stigmatizing effect,” the plea stated.
Calling for immediate withdrawal of the directive, Mr. Jha submitted that mandating disclosure of religious or caste identity under the guise of lawful licence requirements constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.
“There is grave and imminent risk of irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of affected vendors, particularly from minority communities, unless this Court issues immediate directions to restrain the Respondents from continuing this indirect implementation,” the plea said.
