SC Refuses to Halt QR Code Order for Kanwar Yatra Eateries

• Supreme Court refused to interfere with UP & Uttarakhand’s QR code directive for Kanwar Yatra eateries, noting the yatra’s end.
• The Court emphasized “consumer is king,” stressing the right to know food details, including if a place usually serves non-vegetarian.
• While not ruling on QR code legality, it clarified eateries must display licenses and registration.

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 22nd July: The Supreme Court on Tuesday opted not to interfere with the directives from the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments mandating eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes, which enable pilgrims to access details about owners and staff. The apex court disposed of the interlocutory applications challenging the order, noting that Tuesday marked the last day of the annual pilgrimage. However, it explicitly left the broader constitutional question of whether governments can compel vendors to disclose their identity pending for future consideration.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh emphasized the principle that “consumer is king,” advocating for customers’ right to transparency regarding food ingredients and preparation methods, including whether an establishment traditionally serves non-vegetarian food but switches to vegetarian during the yatra.

While declining to delve into the legality of the QR code directives due to the yatra’s conclusion, the bench clarified that food sellers must, as statutorily required, display their licenses and registration certificates.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Huzefa Ahmadi, representing various petitioners including academic Apoorvanand Jha, strongly opposed the state governments’ move. They labeled it “the worst kind of religious profiling” and an attempt to “promote untouchability” through indirect means. Singhvi argued that forcing public display of owner and employee names amounted to “unconstitutional identity-based discrimination,” a “direct assault” on fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, and the basic structure doctrine. He contended that such a policy sought to “ostracise establishments owned by minorities.”

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Uttar Pradesh, defended the directive, asserting that Kanwariyas are “sentimental people” and that a person might not eat even at a relative’s house if they know meat is cooked there.

When an intervening counsel suggested that the “root cause of the problem” was dhabas with Hindu names being run by Muslims, Justice Sundresh sharply retorted, “Please don’t embarrass us with such submissions.”

Justice Sundresh further elaborated on consumer interest, stating, “I’m agnostic. I have no problem. But my friend wouldn’t eat at a place that even touches garlic or onion. Consumer interest matters.” He underscored that consumers have a right to know if a hotel serves vegetarian food year-round or only during the Shravan period of the yatra. This information, he suggested, could be derived from existing licensing requirements.