The order issued by the Muzaffarnagar police earlier this week has been criticised by opposition parties and some members of the ruling NDA at the Centre, who say it targets Muslim traders.

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 22) put an interim stay on the directions passed by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments which asked food shops located on the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of the owners. The apex court said that shop owners need not display their names or identity in front of their shops. The court also directed shop owners to only display what kind of food is being prepared – 'vegetarian or non-vegetarian'.

A bench of Justices Rishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti has issued notices to the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Tezzbuzz and sought their response on the petitions challenging the directive. The Supreme Court said that food vendors should not be forced to write the names of owners and employees. The Supreme Court has fixed the next hearing of the case on July 26.

“We deem it appropriate to pass an interim order staying the operation of the above directions. In other words, food vendors may be required to display the type of food but they should not be compelled to display the names of owners, employees etc,” the bench said while posting the matter for further hearing on Friday.

What happened in the hearing?

Earlier, during the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners told the Supreme Court that it is a worrying situation where police officers themselves are coming forward to create division. The counsel for the petitioners said, “Minorities will be identified and economically excluded. Apart from UP and Uttarakhand, two more states have joined in this. The Supreme Court asked whether it was a press statement or a formal order that these should be displayed?”

The counsel for the petitioners replied that first the press statement came and then there was outrage among the people and they said that it is voluntary but they are strictly enforcing it. The counsel said that there is no formal order but the police are taking strict action. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, said that this is a sham order.

Senior advocate CU Singh, representing the petitioner, said most of the people are very poor vegetable and tea stall owners and their economic condition will worsen due to such economic boycott. He said, “We have faced bulldozer action for not following the rules.”

The Supreme Court told Singhvi that we should not present the situation in such a way that it is exaggerated more than the ground reality. These orders also include the dimensions of safety and hygiene.

Singhvi said that the Kanwar Yatra has been taking place for decades and people of all religions including Muslims, Christians and Buddhists help in their journey. Now you are excluding them.

Singhvi said there are many pure vegetarian restaurants run by Hindus and they may have Muslim employees, can I say I will not go there and eat because the food there has been touched by Muslims or Dalits in some way? Singhvi said the directive says “voluntarily” but where is the voluntariness? If I tell, I am guilty and if I don't tell, I am also guilty.

The Supreme Court asked whether Kanwariyas also expect the food to be cooked by owners of a particular category.