Kanwar Yatra: Supreme Court says customers have right to know if restaurant was earlier serving non-veg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday advocated for customers' right to know about the ingredients and preparation methods used in the food being served at restaurants, including whether the place was serving non-vegetarian food earlier [Apoorvanand Jha & Anr v. Union of India & Ors].

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh was hearing an application challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s directive for QR codes to be put up at eateries along the route taken during the Kanwar Yatra, which could then be scanned to reveal the names of the shop owners.

Last year, the Court had stayed the direction issued by authorities in various states requiring shop owners and hawkers to display their names outside their premises during the Kanwar Yatra season. The direction to display a QR code has been described as a move to circumvent the stay.

Considering that today is the final day of Kanwar Yatra, the Court declined to go into the issue in detail.

"We have been informed that today is the last day of the Yatra. In any case, it is likely to come to an end. At this stage, we say all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the license and registration certificate as required statutorily. We are not going into the other issues argued," the Bench said.

A discussion on the State's objectives and customer rights ensued during the hearing.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the applicants, questioned the latest government directive. He said,

"The circular ostracises establishments owned by the minority community. The minority community is also selling vegetarian food only. I will boycott on the menu card. But I can’t boycott on the surname. Permission should have been sought to modify that order instead of violating it."

He added that the move was aimed at creating division in society.

"There is no issue here about name of the establishment, cleanliness, etc. the only issue here is identity politics. Obviously utmost respect has to be shown to Kanwariyas. You obviously can’t have a meat shop there. This is a governmental intervention," he said.

The Court pointed out that some may have a problem with going to restaurants where both vegetarian and non-vegetarian are served. Singhvi said that they can always ask for menu card and inquire at the threshold.

"First of all, they display pure veg because they know the route," the senior counsel said.

When the Court asked whether the eateries serve vegetarian throughout the year, Singhvi said they do so during the duration of Yatra. The Court then commented on the right to know of the customer.

"If one is pure vegetarian, some won’t touch garlic or non veg. Let me be frank. Some of us judges also, when we prepare food, we say some will not touch garlic, onion etc...It’s ultimately about the comfort zone. There may be some indication," he said.

At this stage, Justice Sundresh also revealed that he is agnostic. He, however, added that there may be an issue in case restaurants only change during the Yatra period.

"I am basically agnostic. I have no issue with this. But it’s a matter of choice. If it’s a pure veg restaurant, there’s no problem. But if they are converting just for the Yatra, then there might be an issue."

The Court added that customers should have a way of knowing that the restaurants were earlier serving non-veg also.

"We are not concerned with their restrictions. We are concerned with the customers. We are putting it to both of you. If a hotel is running as pure veg all through, then you are right. The question of indicating names will not arise. But only for the purpose of Yatra if someone changes from non veg to veg, then the customers should know. There should be a way to indicate this restaurant earlier used to serve non veg food but has converted to vegetarian now for the Yatra."

"It is about the mindset. Somebody may be satisfied with this. Somebody might not be. Somebody may want to have at a restaurant which serves veg throughout the year. Not just during the Yatra. Consumer is the king," the Court added.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, said that the sentiments of people are involved in the matter.

"There are people in this country who will not eat in their brother’s house if non veg is being cooked. There are sentiments of the devotees," he said.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, also appearing for the applicants, submitted that State just wanted the religious identity of the owners to be revealed. The name or identity of the owner and staff and their religious identity has got nothing to do with food, he added.

"If I start a business and I call it Bombay Mart. In the certificate it will be displayed as Bombay Mart. It will not be Bombay Mart/Huzefa. We are on the name of the owner. How this QR code works is very important. What is sought to be done by a colourable exercise is disclosing the religious identity of the owners," the senior counsel said.

However, the Court declined to go into the issue.

"We will not say anything on this. Marx has rightly said that religion is the opium of people," Justice Sundresh remarked.

The Court then disposed of the application with the direction for displaying of license and registration certificates.

The Supreme Court had last year stayed the directive to display owner names in a batch of petitions alleging that the State's measures were aimed at revealing the religious identity of shop-owners of such establishments, and to enable discrimination against Muslim shop owners. The top court stayed the directives on July 22, 2024 and extended the stay on July 26, 2024.

The applicants in the latest plea alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government and local authorities tried to circumvent the Supreme Court's stay orders by reintroducing similar directives in a modified form through mandatory QR codes at all eateries.

"(News reports) confirm that all eateries on the Kanwar route are required to display QR codes that allow 'customers to access ownership details.' These steps effectively serve the same unconstitutional end through digital means, in wilful disobedience of this Hon’ble Court’s directions," the plea states.