Plea filed in SC against UP, Uttarakhand's orders to display names on shops along Kanwar Yatra route
The petition, filed by Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, argues that the mandate violates an 2024 interim order of court that prohibited forcing vendors to disclose their identities.
However, the QR codes, now being made mandatory for all food stalls and eateries along the pilgrimage route, would enable pilgrims and others to access personal details of business owners.
During the Kanwar Yatra, devotees, called Kanwariyas, walk hundreds of kilometres to collect water from the Ganga near Haridwar and carry it back to their home states to offer at temples.
The devotees mainly come from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh.
This year's Kanwar Yatra started on Saturday and will conclude on August 9.
The petition contends that this not only undermines the spirit of the Supreme Court's stay but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licensing requirements.
The plea claims that the governments' orders were a digital workaround to continue the identity-disclosure practice that had been stayed by the court. It warns that the orders could heighten the risk of 'communal profiling and intimidation' and violate the fundamental right to privacy and dignity.
The plea points out that while vendors are legally required to display licenses, those are meant to be posted inside their premises, not put up prominently outside or through public QR codes.
The 'vague and overbroad directives deliberately mix up the licensing requirements with the other unlawful demand to display religious identity, and leave scope for violent enforcement of such a manifestly arbitrary demand both by vigilante groups and by authorities on the ground,' the plea further adds.
The petitioner urged the court to direct Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to immediately withdraw the orders and restrain authorities from implementing any further measures that could lead to religious profiling.
'There is a grave and imminent risk of irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of affected vendors, particularly from minority communities,' the plea said.
The petitioner also requested that the court should ask the respondents to submit affidavits explaining how the new mandates do not breach the court's earlier stay or constitutional protections.
The matter will be heard by the court on July 15.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a minute ago
- Indian Express
SC issues notice on plea challenging validity of BNS Section 152
The Supreme Court Friday issued a notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petition contends that the provision 'reintroduces the colonial sedition law'. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria also tagged it with a pending matter challenging the provision. Section 152 of BNS states that 'whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.' The plea, filed by retired Army officer S G Vombatkere, says that the provision, 'in effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under a new nomenclature. Though the language is altered, its substantive content — criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as 'subversive activity', 'encouragement of separatist feelings' and acts 'endangering unity or integrity of India' — remains the same or is even more expansive'. Hearing the petitions challenging section 124A of the IPC, the Supreme Court on May 11, 2022, put on hold trial in all sedition cases pending before courts across the country until the Centre completed a promised exercise 'to re-examine and re-consider the provision'. 'All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections, if any, could proceed if the courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused,' the SC had directed.
Scroll.in
3 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Petition alleges Section 152 of BNS reintroduces sedition law, SC seeks Centre's reply
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Union government to respond to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Live Law reported. Section 152 of the criminal law pertains to acts that endanger India's sovereignty, unity and integrity. It criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who 'purposely or knowingly' use words to 'excite or attempt to excite' secession, rebellion or subversive activities. The petition claimed that the provision effectively reintroduces the colonial-era sedition law. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria issued notice on the petition filed by SG Vombatkere, a retired major general in the Indian Army, and tagged it with another pending matter challenging the same provision. In his petition, Vombatkere said that the court had in May 2022 ordered proceedings and criminal prosecutions for sedition under Section 124A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code to be kept in abeyance, The Hindu reported. However, Section 124A was slipped in again into the law in the guise of Section 152 when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2024, the petitioner argued. 'The provision, in effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A of the IPC, 1860, under a new nomenclature,' the newspaper quoted the petition as having said. 'Though the language is altered, its substantive content – criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as 'subversive activity', 'encouragement of separatist feelings', and acts 'endangering unity or integrity of India' – remains the same or is even more expansive,' it added. The petition also said that Section 152 was violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. While Article 14 pertains to equality, Article 19(1)(a) talks about free speech and Article 21 about right to life and personal liberty. The 'sweeping' language used in Section 152, 'including phrases like encouraging feelings of separatist activities, failed the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, chilling effect, disproportionate punishment, and absence of proximate nexus to public disorder', it added. New criminal laws Three new criminal laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – came into effect on July 1, 2024. They replaced the British-era Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. When introducing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had claimed that the new law ' completely repealed ' the sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. 'Everyone has the right to speak,' the home minister had said at the time. 'We are completely repealing sedition.' However, critics have argued that Section 152 of the BNS is a 'new version' of a colonial-era sedition law, which had been misused to harass, intimidate and persecute human rights defenders, activists, journalists, among others, for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Mint
3 minutes ago
- Mint
EC cites Kamal Nath judgment to counter Rahul Gandhi's 'vote chori' charges. What was the 2018 SC order?
Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi has drawn sharp criticism from the Election Commission over allegations of irregularities in India's electoral rolls. The Congress leader, speaking at a recent press conference on Thursday, alleged that multiple entries and duplications in the voter list compromise the integrity of the electoral process. The Election Commission of India has rejected Gandhi's claims and disregarded established legal procedures. On Friday, the Election Commission cited "The Kamal Nath judgement" that, it said, gives a settled position to the machine-readable document. The poll panel stated that repeatedly raising the same issues shows that Rahul Gandhi has no respect for the Supreme Court of India's decisions. "Law provides a specific procedure for both making objections to the roll and for appealing. Instead of availing the legal processes, he tried to sensationalise the issue by making baseless claims in the media," the poll panel sources said. The ECI is referring to allegations made in 2018 by then Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) president Kamal Nath that were rejected by the Supreme Court reliability of ECI's voter databases. In 2018, Kamal Nath had approached the Supreme Court claiming that the electoral rolls in Madhya Pradesh showed multiple entries of the same faces, up to 36 times, based on data sourced from a private website. The court, however, found no merit in the claim, particularly after the Election Commission of India (ECI) demonstrated that the supposed discrepancies had already been rectified months prior to the petition. The court refused to grant the relief sought, including the demand for searchable PDF formats of electoral rolls. Rahul Gandhi alleged that similar discrepancies still exist, including multiple entries of the same name across different states. One example he cited was a voter named Aditya Srivastava, allegedly listed in three different State rolls. However, ECI sources assertively said that this error had been corrected months ago, and the updated rolls had been duly published. The poll panel said it is a settled proposition that if law requires a certain thing to happen in a certain manner, then it should be done in that manner only and not in any other manner. "Therefore, if Rahul Gandhi believes in his analysis and believes that his allegations against ECI are true, he should have respect for law and sign the Declaration or Apologise to the Nation for raising absurd allegations against ECI," is said. Kamal Nath had sought directions from the Supreme Court for the Election Commission to conduct VVPAT verification in at least 10 per cent randomly selected polling stations and to publish the draft voter list in 'text format' ahead of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections in November 2018. In his petition, Kamal Nath said his party identified 60 lakh duplicate voters in the electoral rolls in Madhya Pradesh. Kamal Nath had demanded that draft electoral rolls be published in word format in place of the current practice of having them on the website of the Chief Electoral Officers to help weed out the fake names. The SC bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan found force in the Election Commission's argument that the Election Manual provides for publishing the draft electoral roll in 'text mode'. Kamal Nath cannot claim as a right that the draft electoral roll should be placed on the website in a 'searchable mode,' the court said. 'It is for the ECI to decide the format in which the draft electoral roll is to be published,' Justice Sikri, who wrote the judgment, said.
