Supreme Court Sidesteps Ruling on Kanwar Yatra QR Code Mandate, Citing Mootness

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday declined to examine the substantive legal questions surrounding directives from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand that mandated eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes revealing owner identities. A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh disposed of interlocutory applications challenging the mandate, deeming the issue infructuous as the annual pilgrimage was concluding the same day.

The Court's decision leaves unresolved the contentious clash between the fundamental right to privacy, the right to trade without discrimination, and the state's asserted interest in consumer transparency and public order. While sidestepping a definitive ruling on the QR code's legality, the bench directed all food vendors to strictly comply with the statutory requirement of displaying their FSSAI licenses and registration certificates.

The case, which saw petitioners like Professor Apoorvanand, activist Aakar Patel, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), brought to the fore serious allegations of state-sponsored religious profiling.

Background: Circumventing a Prior Stay?

The legal challenge stemmed from directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments for the 2024 Kanwar Yatra. These directives required food vendors to display QR codes which, when scanned, would disclose the names and details of the establishment's owners.

This move was seen by the petitioners as a deliberate attempt to circumvent a 2023 interim order by the Supreme Court. In the previous year, the Court had stayed similar directives that required the outright display of owners' and staff's names. The petitioners argued that the QR code was merely a technologically-veiled method to achieve the same allegedly discriminatory outcome.

The applications, moved in writ petitions from 2024, contended that these measures were a "direct assault on the principle of secularism" and violated the fundamental right to privacy and the right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Courtroom Debate: Identity Politics vs. Consumer Choice

The hearing featured a spirited debate between senior counsel, encapsulating the core conflict.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi launched a scathing attack on the state's rationale. He argued that the authorities should have sought a modification of the 2023 stay order before issuing new directives. "How does the surname of the owner ensure good service? The only intent is to cause religious profiling," Singhvi submitted forcefully. He warned of the real-world consequences of such policies, stating, "When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace," alluding to reports of attacks on certain shops. He termed the initiative "most divisive," aimed at ostracizing minority vendors "as if these people are untouchables."

In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, defended the directives as being rooted in central law, specifically the regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSAI). He argued the measures were necessary for law and order, citing past incidents where Kanwariya pilgrims allegedly ransacked eateries that were found to be misrepresenting non-vegetarian items as vegetarian. "Last year we had a law and order situation... That is why the police authority issued that order," Rohatgi explained, adding, "As per the regulations under the Act they require photo identity. Why are you scared of showing your name?"

This set the stage for the bench's intervention, which focused heavily on the "consumer is the king" principle. Justice Sundresh opined that a consumer, particularly a religious pilgrim, has the right to make an informed choice. He drew a distinction between establishments that are perennially vegetarian and those that switch to a vegetarian menu only during the Yatra for commercial reasons.

"If a hotel was earlier serving non-veg, and for the purpose of better business they serve only veg during the yatra, that will be an issue for the consideration of the consumer. The choice is of the consumer," Justice Sundresh observed. He suggested that while names need not be displayed, "there must be some way to indicate" an eatery's past culinary practices.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, also for the petitioners, countered that this stretched the concept of consumer choice too far. He argued that a consumer's legitimate interest ends at what is currently being served. "The demand of the consumers is served by providing only vegetarian fare. But there is no need to disclose that the eatery had once served non-vegetarian food," Ahmadi contended. He illustrated the potential for profiling, noting that a business with a neutral name like "Bombay Mart" would be forced to display its owner's name as "Bombay Mart Huzefa," thereby revealing religious identity. He warned that such a policy promotes "untouchability through the backdoor."

The Court's Final Order and Its Implications

Ultimately, the bench chose the path of judicial avoidance. Citing the conclusion of the Kanwar Yatra, it declared the matter had become moot for the time being. The operative part of the order was concise: "We are told that today is the last day of the Yatra... Therefore, at this stage, we would only pass an order that all the respective Hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements. We make it clear that we are not going into the other issues argued. The application is closed."

When Ahmadi pressed for a specific clarification that names and QR codes need not be displayed, Justice Sundresh directed the petitioners to approach the High Court if they wished to pursue the challenge.

The order, while providing a temporary resolution by deferring the core issue, leaves several critical legal questions unanswered.

1. The Sanctity of Interim Orders: The case raises concerns about whether state authorities can implement policies that achieve the same substantive effect as those previously stayed by the Court, albeit through different means. The petitioners' argument that the QR code was a "circumvention" was not adjudicated.

2. Scope of Consumer Rights: Justice Sundresh's observations significantly expand the "consumer's right to know," extending it beyond the immediate product to the history of the business and, implicitly, the identity of its owner. The legal basis for such a broad interpretation, especially when it potentially infringes on fundamental rights, remains untested.

3. Limits of State Regulation: While the state cited FSSAI rules, the petitioners argued that these rules only require the business name, not the owner's personal name, to be displayed on licenses. The Court did not rule on whether the state's QR code directive constituted a reasonable and lawful extension of these regulations.

By deeming the matter infructuous, the Supreme Court has effectively kicked the can down the road. The underlying tensions and the legal challenge are almost certain to resurface during next year's Kanwar Yatra, setting the stage for another high-stakes confrontation over identity, commerce, and constitutional rights. For now, the legal community is left to parse the bench's observations and anticipate the next chapter in this recurring controversy.