Supreme Court Probes Legality of QR Code Mandate for Kanwar Yatra Eateries

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is once again poised to adjudicate on the delicate balance between state regulation during a religious pilgrimage and the fundamental rights of citizens. On Tuesday, July 15, 2025, a Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand , demanding a response to a challenge against their new directive mandating that food vendors along the Kanwar Yatra route display QR codes that reveal their ownership details.

The Court has set a tight deadline, listing the matter for hearing on July 22, after petitioners argued the issue was "time-sensitive" with the annual pilgrimage already underway and set to conclude shortly. This legal battle revisits a controversy from the previous year, raising critical questions about privacy, non-discrimination, and the potential for technology to be used as a tool for "digital profiling" in circumvention of prior judicial orders.

The application, filed within the existing writ petition APOORVANAND JHA AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 328/2024 , brings together a prominent group of petitioners including academic Apoorvanand Jha , activist Aakar Patel , the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. They are represented by a team of senior advocates including Shadan Farasat , Chander Uday Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi.

---

The Core of the Controversy: A Digital Veil for Discrimination?

The central argument advanced by the petitioners is that the QR code mandate is a thinly veiled attempt to bypass a Supreme Court stay order from July 2024. In that instance, the apex court had prohibited the very same state governments from enforcing directives that required eateries to publicly display the names of their owners and staff. The court had reasoned then that while vendors could be asked to disclose the type of food served (e.g., vegetarian), forcing the disclosure of personal identity was a step too far.

This year, petitioners contend, the states have introduced a "subtle" but equally insidious measure. The application argues that the new QR code requirement achieves the exact same result that the Court had previously stayed.

"The new measures mandate the display of QR codes on all eateries along the Kanwar route, which reveal the names and identities of the owners, thereby achieving the same discriminatory profiling that was previously stayed by this Hon'ble Court," the petitioners submitted.

They allege that this digital directive is a "wilful disobedience" of the Court's earlier order, designed to enable pilgrims to identify and potentially boycott establishments run by individuals from minority communities, thereby fostering communal polarization.

---

Legal Arguments: Privacy, Equality, and Livelihood at Stake

The legal challenge is anchored in a multi-pronged assault on the constitutionality of the state directives, touching upon several fundamental rights.

1. Breach of the Right to Privacy (Article 21): The petitioners argue that compelling public disclosure of identity—even through a scannable code—is a flagrant violation of the right to privacy, now firmly established as a fundamental right under Article 21. They draw a crucial distinction between this public-facing mandate and the standard legal requirement for businesses to possess a license.

"A directive to reveal religious, caste identities couched under the garb of ‘lawful license requirements’ is a breach of privacy rights," the application contends. "The requisite license is a self-contained certificate, which although reveals the name of the owner, is displayed inside the premises at a place where it may be accessed."

The petitioners assert that equating the discreet, internal display of a license with a prominent, external QR code designed for mass public access is a gross overreach of state power and de hors any genuine licensing requirement.

2. Violation of Equality and Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 & 15): The plea posits that the directive is inherently discriminatory. By facilitating the identification of a vendor's religion or caste through their name, the states are signaling to pilgrims which establishments to patronize or avoid. This, they argue, violates the principles of equality before the law (Article 14) and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or caste (Article 15). The move is seen as antithetical to the secular values enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.

3. Infringement on the Right to Livelihood (Article 19(1)(g)): The practical consequence of such profiling, the petitioners fear, is a direct hit on the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The application references the impact of the 2024 directives, which allegedly led to the "forcible retrenchment of employees" and financial harm to businesses along the pilgrimage route, particularly those owned by minorities. The current QR code mandate is expected to have a similar chilling effect.

---

The Apprehension of Violence and Vigilantism

Beyond the abstract constitutional violations, the petitioners have voiced a grave and urgent concern: the potential for mob violence. They argue that the state's policy creates a permissive environment for vigilantism.

The application warns that, "vague and overbroad directives deliberately mix up licensing requirements with the 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."

This fear is not unfounded. The identification and targeting of businesses based on the owner's religious identity have been recurring flashpoints for communal tension in various parts of the country. The petitioners argue that the state, instead of protecting all its citizens, is actively creating conditions that could endanger vendors from minority communities.

---

The Road Ahead: A Test for Judicial Oversight

During the brief hearing on Tuesday, counsel for Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand sought a fortnight to file their replies. However, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat , appearing for the applicants, successfully argued for an expedited timeline, stressing that the Kanwar Yatra would be over in "ten-twelve days." The Bench agreed, posting the matter for next week on July 22.

The Supreme Court's upcoming hearing will be closely watched by the legal community. The ruling will not only determine the fate of hundreds of small business owners along the Yatra route for this year but will also set a crucial precedent. It will test the Court's ability to look beyond the form of a government directive to its substantive effect, especially in an era where technology can be deployed to achieve constitutionally suspect ends. The case presents a classic conflict between the state's purported regulatory interest and the citizen's fundamental rights to privacy, equality, and a life of dignity, free from fear and discrimination.