Owaisi slams ‘pant utaaro' Aadhaar checks at UP eateries ahead of Kanwar Yatra: ‘This filth must stop'
Referring to recent reports of men being forced to remove their pants to 'prove their religion' along the Delhi-Dehradun highway, Owaisi said that areas like Baghonwali, Sarwat, and Bajheri near the Muzaffar Nagar bypass have seen peaceful pilgrimages for over a decade, but things have drastically changed.
'There are hotels in those villages that have been operating peacefully for years,' he said. 'Why is it that 10–11 years ago, there were no such incidents, and now people are being pulled out, asked for Aadhaar cards, and even forced to strip if they fail to show one? Who are these vigilantes? Is the government running the state, or have these groups taken over?'
In his sharp criticism, Owaisi asked what authority these individuals had to storm into hotels and question staff. 'Who gave you the right to enter a hotel and ask someone their name or demand their Aadhaar card? Are you the police? Are you the law? Are you the government?' he said, referencing a Supreme Court order prohibiting such harassment, which he said is still in force.
'They went to the hotel and asked for the Aadhaar card of the owner. When they didn't get it, they said, 'pant utaaro' — 'take off your pants'. Kya hai yeh gandagi? — 'What kind of filth is this?' This filth must stop. If the police won't act, these people will keep behaving like they're the superior government. Our demand is simple: follow the rule of law,' Owaisi said. Vigilantes force eatery staff to 'prove' religion
His remarks come in the backdrop of reports from Muzaffarnagar where followers of controversial seer Swamy Yashveer Maharaj allegedly forced roadside eatery workers and hotel staff to prove their religion by lowering their pants.
The vigilante group, reportedly part of a self-styled outfit called the Bharatiya Sanatan Suraksha Dal, has been accused of repeatedly targeting establishments run by minority communities during the ongoing Kanwar Yatra.
The Supreme Court, on July 22 last year, issued an interim order staying the Uttar Pradesh government's directive that mandated shopkeepers along Kanwar Yatra routes to display their names. The court clarified that owners are only required to mention the type of food served at their establishments.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the state's order had no legal basis and described it as a 'camouflage order.'
The order came in response to a directive issued by Muzaffarnagar Police last year, which required all eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners on signboards.
The Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government later expanded this directive statewide, with the governments of Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh adopting similar measures.
However, the move drew strong criticism not only from the Opposition but also from several NDA allies, including the Janata Dal (United) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Frequent disruptions in Parliament have significantly reduced: Om Birla
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Thursday (July 3, 2025) said that frequent disruptions in Parliament, once a recurring feature, had significantly declined, paving the way for improved productivity and more substantive debate. Speaking at the inaugural session of the first national conference of the heads of urban local bodies from States and Union Territories in Manesar, Haryana, Mr. Birla noted that the Lok Sabha had increasingly witnessed late-night sittings and prolonged discussions, reflecting what he described as a 'matured and responsible democratic culture'. Also read: Deliberate disruptions of Parliament proceedings against the spirit of democracy: Om Birla He urged urban local bodies to institutionalise structured procedures such as regular sittings, robust committee systems, and citizen engagement mechanisms to strengthen grassroots democracy. The two-day conference, themed 'Role of Urban Local Bodies in Strengthening Constitutional Democracy and Nation Building', aims to serve as a platform to define the role of urban local bodies in a rapidly urbanising India and to highlight innovative models of contemporary urban governance. Referring to India's ancient traditions of village assemblies and community deliberations, Mr. Birla remarked that India had long been recognised as the 'Mother of Democracy'. 'These are the roots of our democratic functioning, which we have inherited over centuries. Today, there is a need for municipal body meetings to carry forward our rich democratic tradition,' he said, adding that the functioning of municipal bodies should be 'dignified, rule-bound, and regular'. Mr. Birla proposed that municipal bodies incorporate procedures such as Question Hour and Zero Hour to allow elected representatives to raise issues concerning their constituencies. Such mechanisms, he said, would enhance accountability, improve transparency, and facilitate more effective monitoring of administrative work. 'I have observed that in many municipalities, councils, and corporations, meetings are not held throughout the year. Sometimes, only a budget meeting takes place, which is adjourned within half an hour amid chaos. This is not a healthy democratic tradition,' Mr. Birla said. He added that municipal meetings should be day-long affairs with detailed deliberations on proposals and plans. Opinion: The sorry state of India's parliamentary proceedings 'There should also be extensive discussion on the budget, so that schemes are made in the interest of the public and their impact is visible on the ground,' he said. Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Saini, addressing the gathering, described urban local bodies as foundational institutions and 'the first school and nursery of democracy'. He said the strength of the nation lay in the democratic depth of its local governance. 'A developed India and a developed Haryana can only be achieved through developed cities,' he said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Indore, Pune, Lucknow shine at National ULB meet with innovative urban models
CHANDIGARH: Municipal Corporations of Lucknow, Pune and Indore were recognised among the best-performing urban local bodies during the first national conference of urban local body chairpersons held in Manesar, Haryana. Addressing public representatives from across the country after inaugurating the first-ever two-day National Conference on 'Strengthening Constitutional Democracy and the Role of Urban Local Bodies in Nation Building', held at the ICAT-2 Campus Auditorium in Manesar, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla said that elected representatives of urban local bodies must fulfil their responsibilities with a clear focus on the vision of Developed India 2047, adopting innovative approaches, strong leadership, and practical skills. He urged all representatives to take a pledge: 'My corporation, my council, my municipality, and my city should be counted among the cleanest and most beautiful cities in the world.' Birla added that if urban local body representatives step forward with a positive attitude, they can undoubtedly bring dynamic and energetic changes to urban areas. He noted that urban local bodies, as the smallest units of the nation, are now playing a strong and vital role in steering the country in a new direction. The gathering, he said, aimed to explore ways to strengthen India's democratic institutions for a brighter future.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
India's legal system avoids sweeping lower court injunctions recently curtailed by US Supreme Court
Written by Swapnil Tripathi President Donald Trump's second term has seen a surge in executive orders, including the withdrawal of diversity and inclusion mandates and a recent order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. To date, he has signed 164 executive orders. Several of these orders have been subject to legal challenge, with federal district courts granting interim relief in the form of nationwide stays on their implementation. Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled on this practice in Trump vs CASA, holding that lower federal courts cannot grant universal stays prohibiting the enforcement of executive orders and must confine relief to the parties before them. This development raises an important question: Could a district court in India exercise similar powers? The US Constitution establishes a federal structure where powers are divided between the federal and state governments, each with its own constitution, legislature, executive, and judiciary. Disputes arising from federal executive action or legislation are adjudicated in the federal courts. These courts follow a three-tier hierarchy: District courts, courts of appeals, and the US Supreme Court. District courts, at the base of this structure, have the authority to review executive actions for their conformity with the Constitution and federal law. They can grant interim injunctions, including nationwide stays, and may ultimately strike down the action as unconstitutional. In contrast, India's constitutional architecture provides for a single, unified judiciary. While India adopts a quasi-federal model with a division of powers between the Union and the states, the judiciary remains integrated. It comprises district courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court, functioning within a hierarchical framework. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian district courts are confined to civil and criminal matters under statutory law and lack the authority to entertain constitutional challenges to executive action or legislation. This power lies exclusively with the Supreme Court and the high courts. Under Articles 32 and 226, respectively, both courts can directly hear petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and issue writs or interim orders, including staying or striking down executive and legislative action. Although high courts have fixed territorial jurisdiction, they can entertain challenges to the central government's actions if the cause of action arises within their territory. This ensures that litigants need not approach the Supreme Court in the first instance for relief against Union's action. Since the adoption of the Constitution, high courts have often acted as first responders in constitutional litigation. Within the first year itself, laws abolishing the zamindari system were challenged before multiple High Courts, with the Patna High Court striking down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Similarly, in Tara Singh vs State, the Punjab High Court struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code — the erstwhile sedition provision — as violative of the right to freedom of speech. The importance of empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court to review executive action became particularly evident during the Emergency (1975–77). When the President suspended the right to approach courts for enforcing key fundamental rights, including the right to life, thousands were detained. Despite this suspension, nine high courts entertained habeas corpus petitions and held them maintainable where detention orders were contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. Although these decisions were later overruled by the Supreme Court in the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, the episode highlights the value of concurrent constitutional forums. The availability of multiple judicial avenues meant that, even when the Supreme Court ruled against the detainees, the high courts had, at least for a time, provided a measure of protection. This capacity for different forums to reach different conclusions highlights why constitutional powers were vested in both levels: To ensure multiple judicial voices and, in moments of institutional failure, offer alternative avenues for relief. Unlike their American counterparts, Indian courts are generally reluctant to stay the operation of legislation or executive action. In Bhavesh Parish vs Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise judicial restraint and intervene only where the provisions are 'manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional'. This high threshold reflects the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of legislation. Among recent challenges, the Court has declined to stay the operation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and its rules, the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners, and the Waqf (Amendment) Act. However, this institutional design creates the possibility of conflicting decisions across high courts. It is common for a central government action to be challenged simultaneously before multiple High Courts, resulting in inconsistent rulings — one court staying or striking down the action, while another upholds it. A contemporary example is the challenge to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, governing online intermediaries, where some courts granted stay orders while others declined to do so. In such situations, parties often approach the Supreme Court, which typically adopts one of two approaches: First, transferring all proceedings to a single high court to ensure uniformity, as it did in the challenges to the IT Rules by designating the Delhi High Court as the exclusive forum; or second, transferring the proceedings to itself, as seen in the petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. India's system, by design, avoids the kind of sweeping trial-court-level injunctions recently curtailed by the US Supreme Court. By reserving these powers to the constitutional courts, it maintains a clear appellate structure and prevents conflicting orders from subordinate forums. At the same time, by empowering both the high courts and the Supreme Court, it preserves multiple avenues for citizens to challenge government action, even if that occasionally results in divergent rulings across high courts. The writer is a lawyer currently pursuing a DPhil in law at the University of Oxford
