SC directs all hotel owners along Kanwar Yatra route to display licences
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh said it was not going into the other issues of displaying the name of the hotel or dhaba owner and the QR code as Tuesday is the last day of the Kanwar Yatra.
"We are told that today is the last day of the yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. 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," the bench said.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others.
Last year, the Supreme Court stayed similar directives issued by Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh governments, asking eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display the names of their owners, staff and other details.
Referring to a press release issued by the Uttar Pradesh government on June 25, Jha, said, "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 court."
The petition said the State government's directive asking stall owners to reveal religious and caste identities under "lawful license requirements" breaches the right to privacy of the shop, dhaba and restaurant owners.
A large number of devotees travel from various places with 'kanwars' carrying holy water from the Ganga to perform 'jalabhishek' of Shivling during the Hindu calendar month of 'Shravan'.
Many believers shun the consumption of meat during the month. Many do not even consume meals containing onion and garlic.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy
NEW DELHI: Opposing the government's firm stand not to lower the age of consent below 18 years, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising told Supreme Court that it criminalised "consensual sexual activity between children in the age group of 16-18 years, and violated their right to autonomy". Presenting a counter to Centre's stand in the case, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and "neither any rational reason was given justifying the increase to 18 years nor was there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase". "Until enactment of Pocso Act , there was no law dealing with sexual offences against children. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Section 63, has kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that amended IPC to increase the age of consent to 18 years," she said. Jaising said increase in age of consent violated right of autonomy of children in 16-18 age group, who could give mature consent to sexual activity given the fact that they had attained puberty and, consequentially, sexual awareness. However, she put in an important caveat. "This brief does not suggest that anyone above the age of 18 who has sex with another below the age of 18 be decriminalised," she said. "Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and development of sexual relationships of choice," Jaising said, adding, "Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law. " Jaising requested SC to "declare that any consensual sexual activity between children of the ages of 16-18 constitutes an exception to penal provisions of the statute as being 'close in age', non-abusive and non-exploitative". Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals, she said, adding, "Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious relationships or inter-caste relationships. "Consensual sexual relations between adolescents in the 16-18 age bracket need not necessarily result in marriage, but on the contrary, criminalising such sexual behaviour will result in children eloping and getting married to avoid being prosecuted by Pocso." She suggested to the court that the law as it stands requires to be read down to include a 'close in age' exception when the sexual activity is consensual.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court stays use of Bombay HC's 7/11 blast verdict as precedent, but won't halt release of acquitted accused
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mumbai train blasts case of July 11, 2006 to the limited extent that it will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. A division bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, refused to stay the release of the 11 accused who were acquitted by the high court. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Others Operations Management healthcare PGDM Technology MBA Data Analytics Healthcare CXO Digital Marketing Degree Design Thinking Public Policy others Data Science Management Product Management Project Management MCA Leadership Cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details The bench ordered, "all respondents (accused) released and thus no question to bring them back to prison. However, on the question of law we will say that impugned judgment is not treated as precedent in any other cases. Therefore, to that extent let there be stay on the impugned judgment". Appearing on behalf of Maharashtra government , solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the high court ruling could adversely affect other trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act ( MCOCA ). Hence, Mehta sought an urgent stay on the verdict though he did not press for a stay on the release of the acquitted persons. Mehta said as far as stay is concerned, he is "not on liberty" of the accused. Live Events Referring to the high court ruling, Mehta added "there are some findings which will affect all our MCOCA trials. The judgment can be stayed and release be not hampered". The court agreed and granted limited stay on the judgment as urged by Mehta. The bench issued notice to the respondents, directing them to file their responses to the appeal filed by Maharashtra government challenging the high court verdict. In its appeal, the Maharashtra government has challenged the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit all the 12 accused in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, nearly a decade after a special court awarded death penalty to five accused and life sentences to the remaining. The case relates to the serial bomb blasts that occurred on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 187 people and injuring more than 800 people. A special court had in 2015 sentenced five of the accused to death and seven to life imprisonment. One of the convicts died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while lodged in Nagpur jail. The Bombay High Court on Monday acquitted all the accused observing that "the prosecution utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts". Lambasting the prosecution, the high court ruled that the prosecution's case gave the public a "misleading sense of resolution" while "the true threat remains at large".
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Govt withdraws order for teachers' VIP duty at temple
Rajkot/Ahmedabad: The Rajkot district administration has withdrawn an order to govt school teachers and principals to manage VIP food arrangements at Ghela Somnath Temple near Jasdan during the holy month of Shravan . The move came after criticism from the education community and a backlash on social media. The order, issued by the deputy collector of Jasdan on July 21, had directed school staff from various govt primary schools to take charge of administrative responsibilities during temple events, including overseeing VIP food services under the supervision of the taluka primary education officer (TPEO). Citing the number of visitors during Shravan and the scale of activities, the order claimed additional support was required. Educators objected to the move, stating it disrupted academic activities and questioned the appropriateness of assigning teaching staff to non-educational duties. After the uproar, the deputy collector clarified that participation was intended to be voluntary but revoked the order "with immediate effect due to administrative reasons". The Ghela Somnath Temple on the banks of the Ghelo river, is believed to have been built in the 15th century by Princess Minal Devi. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo It houses a Shivlinga brought from Prabhas Patan during the invasion era to protect it from destruction. Minister of state for education, Praful Pansheriya on Thursday called the assignment "entirely inappropriate" and ordered the immediate revocation of the circular. Pansheriya said that besides responsibilities mandated by the central and state govts — such as election duties — teachers should not be assigned any additional tasks. He also announced that going forward, prior approval from the principal secretary of the education department will be mandatory before assigning responsibilities to teachers. According to an official statement, the minister had a telephonic discussion with Mukesh Kumar, principal secretary of education, and directed him to take appropriate action. Reacting to the incident, a Gujarat Congress spokesperson said the govt had previously issued similar circulars assigning teachers non-teaching duties. He added that such practices must be stopped immediately.
