The Hon’ble Supreme Court intervening in a state’s policy matter, staying the impugned directives issued by the SSP Muzaffarnagar Police on July 17, 2024, against the owners of the shops and eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names outside such shops, not only raises eyebrows but also escorts a way for serious constitutional disharmony.
Before getting into the legal nuances, it is imperative to note that the State of Uttar Pradesh subsequently expanded the directive statewide on July 19, 2024, and the State of Uttarakhand verbally issued an oral advisory effective July 19–20, 2024.
For brevity, the Kanwar Yatra is an annual revered pilgrimage where Shiva devotees, known as Kanwarias, travel to Hindu pilgrimage sites like Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri in Uttarakhand, and Ajgaibinath in Bihar. They collect holy water from the Ganges River and carry it over long distances to offer at local Shiva shrines or temples such as Pura Mahadeva, Augharnath, Kashi Vishwanath, and Baidyanath. For the most revered pilgrimage of the Hindus, Kanwar Yatra is not only symbolic of faith but also of purity. The purity further stems from the food-‘shudh shakahari’ (pure and clean vegetarian) that the Kanwariyas consume during the auspicious yatra.
Consequentially, a directive was realized necessary to promote the interests of the holy pilgrimage and was thereby issued. However, amidst the practice, the intervention in the requirement of ‘shudh shakahari bhojan’ was menaced when a stay on the same directive was imposed. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that the requirement of displaying the names of the proprietors of the establishments and also the names of their staff would hardly achieve the intended objective.
“…If it is specifically argued that the directive without any support of constitutional or legal provisions are permitted to be enforced, it will infringe the secular character of our republic. This will also have the effect of violation of the guaranteed rights under Articles 14, 15(1), 17 of the Constitution”, the bench had further observed.
However, the order by the division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Justice SVN Bhatti may have ignored the fact or purposely attempted to sideline a settled provision in the Constitution of India that matters of religious concerns, public health, law and order, and are purely a subject-matter of State policy.
Moreover, it is the Apex Court that has time and again acknowledged the fact itself while refusing to intervene. For instance, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while dealing with a PIL filed by advocate-petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay seeking direction to the Union and state governments to ensure that Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains have rights similar to those of Muslims in managing their places of worship, had noted, that such a right was already guaranteed to all religious denominations under Article 25 of the Constitution. “We are not going to direct the government to do x, y or z in respect of religious places. That is entirely a matter of policy or for Parliament. It is a matter of legislative policy to design a proper law. We will not enter the legislative domain,” it had observed then.
The purpose of the directives is quite broader than what it is being put in light for. Displaying names and identifying the shop owners would help in geotagging locations. GeoTagging is the process of adding geographical identification metadata to various media because it is the duty of the State to ensure that the vendors are registered and identifiable especially when a religious event of this large scale
Furthermore, during such religious processions, the probability of communal disharmony and violence is either high or unavoidable. That is exactly when the State exclusively has to maintain law and order in the affected area. Therefore, if any directive is issued to avoid the most probable outcome or of an untoward incident which is a highly likely chance, it ordinarily should not be fiddled with by any authority, however high it might be.
The third aspect is revenue generation for the State, which is a primary concern. Ensuring food vendors comply with revenue guidelines allows the State to identify and take appropriate action against any breaches. This process not only aids in identifying the vendors but also holds them accountable. Many vendors operating along the Kanwar route are generally unregistered and thus unidentifiable, making their identification crucial for the proper functioning of the Kanwar pilgrimage. When vendors do not display boards or the proprietor’s name, it becomes more difficult for the State to manage those who violate the basic rule of law.
Fourth and the most important angle is the overreaching role that the Judiciary played in the present matter. When it ought to have reviewed, it misled itself into an adventure. Judicial adventurism peaked when the State’s initiatives were put to a halt.
Further, the directive never instructed to shut down any food shop falling in the route. The business owners who retrenched their employees as a purported consequence of the directive issued, cannot be said to be a direct and plausible interpretation of directions. The said action was not at the government’s behest and cannot be justifiably termed so.
Therefore, contrary to the postulations that it would infringe, on the guaranteed rights under Articles 14, 15(1), and 17 of the Constitution of India, the directive is not ultra vires to the spirit of the Constitution. However, what is more, concerning is the reasonable apprehension that why anything be sold under a garb. Why should penance exist for carrying out the most revered ‘yatra’? Moreover, why would the Hon’ble Supreme Court intervene in a matter that falls exclusively within the legislative domain of the State? We believe the confusion to date persists. A subject matter that purely lies with the State to legislate on, cannot be turned into shambles just by vaguely quoting the Constitution of India.
