The Supreme Court is examining the legality and implications of a police notice issued in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the display of the names of owners and employees at dhabas, hotels, and shops along the Kanwar Yatra route. This issue raises significant constitutional and legal questions.
KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED IN COURT
1. NO GOVERNMENT ORDER
• Observation: The Supreme Court noted that there was no formal government order empowering the police to enforce these directions.
• Regulations Cited: The directions were issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, or the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
2. LIMITS ON POLICE ACTION
• Concern: The court questioned whether the police could enforce such orders without a competent authority’s approval, noting that such actions might violate fundamental rights.
• Shudh Shakahari Directive: The term “strictly vegetarian” was intended to guide Kanwariyas, creating confusion and potential discrimination.
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DIRECTIONS
1. NON-DISCRIMINATION
• Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.
• Article 17: Bans untouchability, relevant here due to economic boycotts targeting certain communities.
. Art.21: Right to Privacy
2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Sections 31(2) and 92 empower FSSAI to regulate food businesses.
• Food Safety Standards (Licensing & Registration of Food Businesses), 2011: Mandates the display of registration certificates and identity cards at food business premises.
DISCRIMINATION CONCERNS
1. POTENTIAL RELIGIOUS BIAS
• Identity Disclosure: Requiring shop owners to display their names could expose their religious identity, potentially targeting Muslim-owned businesses.
• Economic Boycott: The directions may lead to an economic boycott of shops run by individuals from particular communities.
2. VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
• Article 21: Protects the right to privacy.
• Puttaswamy Judgment (2017): Established that privacy is a fundamental right, including the privacy of the mind and freedom of expression.
• Court’s Task: To determine if the mandatory disclosure of names and identity violates this right.
SUPREME COURT’S STANCE
The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of balancing public interest, non-discrimination, and privacy. The directions must be evaluated to ensure they do not infringe on the constitutional rights of individuals or lead to indirect discrimination against specific communities.
CONCLUSION
The ongoing case reflects the delicate balance between regulatory enforcement and constitutional protections. The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for the interpretation of fundamental rights, especially concerning privacy and non-discrimination.
SRIRAM’s
Share:
Get a call back
Fill the below form to get free counselling for UPSC Civil Services exam preparation
