The Supreme Court of India has issued an interim order halting the enforcement of guidelines that required shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra routes in Uttar Pradesh to display their names. Instead, the court ruled that owners should only indicate the type of food served in their establishments.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti also issued notices to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, which had implemented the 'nameplate order'. This order faced legal challenges from the NGO, the Association of Protection of Civil Rights.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued during the hearing that the order lacked legal authority and was essentially a "camouflage" to target certain groups. Singhvi stated that enforcing such an order would have severe economic implications for small shop owners, including tea stalls and fruit vendors. He emphasized that the directive could lead to identity-based exclusion, which contradicts the inclusive spirit envisioned in the Indian Constitution.
Singhvi also noted that Kanwar Yatras has been a longstanding tradition with people from various religions participating and assisting pilgrims, thus questioning the necessity and rationale behind such a directive.Â
CU Singh, another NGO advocate, pointed out that the order lacked statutory backing and served no meaningful purpose. He criticized the directive for being unprecedented and questioned the authority of the Police Commissioner to issue such an order.
The controversial order had initially been enforced by the Muzaffarnagar Police and was later extended statewide by the Uttar Pradesh government, with similar measures adopted by Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh. This move sparked criticism from opposition parties and some National Democratic Alliance (NDA) allies, such as JD(U) and RLD. Critics argued that the order was communal and divisive, targeting Muslims and Scheduled Castes (SCs) by compelling them to reveal their identities. However, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defended the directive, citing concerns over law and order and the religious sentiments of pilgrims.
