Supreme Court Battle Unfolds: MP Mahua Moitra Challenges Controversial UP Directive Requiring Public Disclosure from Eating Establishments During Kanwar Yatra

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court contesting recent directives issued by the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. These directives allegedly mandate all proprietors of eating establishments along the Kanwar Yatra route to prominently display their names, addresses, mobile numbers, and the names of their staff.

The Kanwar Yatra, an annual pilgrimage dedicated to Lord Shiva, attracts millions of devotees during the monsoon season. The pilgrimage traverses several cities, including Muzaffarnagar and Ghaziabad, and culminates in Delhi.

The contested directives were first issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, on July 18, 2024, and subsequently extended statewide on July 19, 2024. The PIL, filed through Advocate Shadan Farasat, argues that these directives exacerbate communal discord and threaten the livelihoods of individuals in the food business. The petition alleges that food entrepreneurs, who typically name their establishments to appeal to out-of-town pilgrims, are now compelled to change their names to reflect their religious identities, which the petition claims exacerbates religious tensions.

The PIL challenges the directives on several grounds:

1. Violation of Article 15(1): The petition contends that the directives constitute discriminatory practices under the guise of respecting dietary choices, effectively targeting Muslim shop owners and workers by forcing them to disclose personal and religious information.

2. Infringement of Right to Privacy (Article 21): The petition argues that the directives violate the right to informational privacy by mandating the disclosure of personal details without legislative authority, exposing individuals to potential social persecution and economic reprisal.

3. Freedom of Occupation (Article 19(1)(g)): It is asserted that the directives impose unreasonable restrictions on business activities, infringing upon the freedom to carry on trade or business.

4. Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)): The petition claims that the directives amount to compelled speech, infringing on the right to freedom of expression by forcing individuals to publicly disclose their personal information.

5. Arbitrariness (Article 14): The petition argues that the directives are arbitrary, disproportionate, and lack a reasonable basis, thereby violating the right to equality.

The petition further alleges that since June 2023, anti-social elements have circulated doctored clips and false information claiming that Muslim community members are contaminating food served to pilgrims. The petition asserts that the Uttar Pradesh government has, through acts of commission and omission, facilitated economic boycotts and intimidation of Muslim businesses, creating conditions conducive to widespread economic discrimination. The Supreme Court is urged to quash the directives and enforce the Supreme Court's judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 9 SCC 501], which addresses the State’s obligation to prevent hate crimes and provides comprehensive guidelines to combat mob violence and lynching.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi will represent the petitioner, with the petition drawn up by Advocates Gautam Bhatia and Prannv Dhawan. The case is titled Mahua Moitra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.