New Delhi, July 22: Today, the Supreme Court issued an interim stay on directives from BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes to display owners’ names and staff details. The controversial move, seen as potentially discriminatory by the opposition, sparked a legal battle that reached the apex court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti ordered a halt to the enforcement of these directives, while allowing eateries to continue displaying the type of food served, such as vegetarian or non-vegetarian options. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The directives, aimed ostensibly at respecting dietary preferences during the holy month of Shravan, faced vehement opposition. Critics argued they could lead to religious profiling and economic boycotts, particularly targeting Muslim and Scheduled Caste communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court’s decision came in response to pleas filed by various individuals and organizations challenging the legality and constitutionality of the state orders. Senior advocates representing the petitioners argued that such mandates lacked legal basis and could infringe on personal freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The controversy intensified as similar orders were extended to other regions, including the BJP-governed Ujjain Municipal Corporation in Madhya Pradesh. The directives mandated displaying names and contact details of eatery owners, ostensibly for safety and hygiene reasons during the Kanwar Yatra, where devotees carry holy water from the Ganga for rituals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Opposition leaders and civil rights groups condemned the directives as divisive and unnecessary, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
New Delhi, July 22: Today, the Supreme Court issued an interim stay on directives from BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes to display owners’ names and staff details. The controversial move, seen as potentially discriminatory by the opposition, sparked a legal battle that reached the apex court. A bench […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1492,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3501","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-national"},"yoast_head":"\n