Kanwar Yatra: SC seeks UP government's response to plea against QR code mandate to food sellers
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh asked the state to file its reply in a week and fixed the matter for hearing next on July 22.
Though the counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh sought two weeks to file a reply, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who appeared for the applicants, contended that the Yatra will be over in the next 10-12 days.
The application cited news reports that the state administration had issued a directive making it mandatory for the eateries to display the QR codes. It also referred to a 'press note dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Chief Minister of U.P.' and said 'it expressly calls for shop keeper names to be clearly displayed during the Yatra'.
The application said that similar directives to display names of owners outside the shops along the Kanwar Yatra route were also issued last year, but were stayed by the Supreme Court.
The fresh directive, it said, 'couched under the garb of 'lawful license requirements' is a breach of privacy rights'.
The plea contended that '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. Equating this requirement to display a normal-sized license with the directive to display name of owner, manager and other employees on billboards outside, or to not give eateries names which do not reflect the religious identity of the owner are de hors the license requirements.'
It said that 'vague and overbroad directives deliberately mix up the licensing requirements with the other 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'.
The application sought a 'stay' of all 'further actions taken pursuant to or in furtherance of directives (whether oral, written or digital, including via QR codes) requiring or facilitating public disclosure of ownership/employee identity of food vendors along Kanwar Yatra routes in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand…'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
POCSO case: SC grants anticipatory bail to accused; issues notice to Kerala government
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has issued notice and protected the petitioner-accused under multiple sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while highlighting the need for consideration of the entire case on merits. A two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order. Arguing before the bench, counsel for the petitioner, Advocates Tarini K. Nayak and C. Arvind, claimed that the case was a product of a long-standing enmity between the petitioner and the complainant's father. It was pointed to that a delay of over four years in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) is a significant factor which casts doubt over the credibility of the complaint, suggesting the possibility of tutoring of the complainant by her father.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC upholds Himachal Pradesh's demand for 18% free power from JSW plant
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Himachal Pradesh government's demand for 18 per cent free electricity supply from JSW Hydro Energy 's 1,045-megawatt Karcham Wangtoo hydroelectric power plant in the state. While setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court 's order for allowing maximum 13 per cent of free electricity to the state government, a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the CERC Regulations 2019 do not prohibit JSW from supplying free power beyond 13 per cent to the State, and the Implementation Agreement does not stand overridden by the operation of these Regulations,' the top court said. 'Once the Regulation does not prohibit the supply of free power beyond 13 per cent, JSW cannot rely on it to wriggle out of its contractual obligations . Such an interpretation is necessary to recognise and enforce the generating company's freedom of contract, which includes its choice of business dealings,' the apex court said, adding that the Regulatory Commissions, APTEL, and the courts must enforce these contractual obligations and ensure that their interpretation of regulations does not allow the party to circumvent and breach its contractual undertakings when the same is not intended by the regulation itself. As per agreements executed between JSW Hydro and the Himachal Pradesh government, the former's plant was supposed to supply free power at 18 per cent of the net generation for 28 years to the state after the completion of 12 years of commercial operations of the project that commenced in 2011. However, CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019 capped the maximum free supply at 13 per cent of the net generation on the ground that contractual agreements, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the applicable regulations, shall stand overridden by their operation. The HC had accepted the CERC's findings and directed that the implementation agreement stood modified. Coming down of JSW for its contradictory positions, Justice Narasimha said that the company cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, or blow hot and cold at the same time to secure relief under the law. 'The regulator has the expertise, specialisation, and institutional memory to conduct such an interpretative exercise to further the objective of the regulatory regime and systematically lay down legal principles. In this light, the High Court should not have entered into the domain of interpreting these Regulations which deal with tariff determination, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the CERC,' the SC said.
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court refuses to stay probe against former Congress minister
The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to stay ongoing investigations against former Congress minister Pramod Jain Bhaya, directing him to cooperate in all pending cases, while issuing notice to the Rajasthan government on his petition which had sought clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him or quashing of all such FIRs. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Bhaya, pressed for an urgent interim relief praying that the investigation in these 'politically motivated' cases be stayed. He argued that the FIRs were lodged after the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly elections, allegedly to harass Bhaya following his electoral defeat. The FIRs, he argued, are vague, overlapping, and have been filed by politically affiliated complainants to settle scores. Former cabinet minister for Mines, Petroleum and Gopalan in the third Ashok Gehlot ministry from 2018 to 2023, Bhaya was elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly three terms from Anta and Baran constituencies. Representing Rajasthan, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma said that each FIR pertains to separate transactions involving distinct facts, complainants and offences, ranging from illegal mining, issuance of forged pattas, to financial misappropriation and document fabrication in collusion with various public officials. Sharma argued that clubbing these FIRs was neither legally sustainable nor practically feasible, especially as they have been lodged across multiple police stations, and that investigation in several matters is at an advanced stage and that the matters are investigated fairly and independently. Taking note of the submissions of the state, the Supreme Court declined to grant Bhaya an interim relief and directed him to cooperate fully in the investigation in all the FIRs pending against him across Rajasthan. However, the top court also categorically stated that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. In his petition, Bhaya had challenged the May 1 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court where it had dismissed his petitions for clubbing and quashing of FIRs, terming the reliefs sought 'contradictory and legally irreconcilable.' The High Court had observed that the FIRs involved distinct allegations and did not arise out of a single transaction, and hence the 'test of sameness' was not satisfied. It further ruled that no mala fides could be presumed without any specific pleading or proof against the investigating officers. The FIRs against Bhaya include allegations under various provisions of the IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, and others, registered at multiple police stations. The SC sought a response from the state government within four weeks.
