Supreme Court seeks response from U.P. on plea against QR code directive for eateries along ‘kanwar' yatra route
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the State government and posted the plea filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others on July 22.
The top court had last year stayed similar directives issued by BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, asking eateries along the kanwar yatra routes to display the names of their owners, staff and other details.
Referring to a press release issued by the UP administration 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 Shivlings during the Hindu calendar month of 'Shravan'.
Many believers shun consumption of meat during the month. Many don't even consume meals containing onions and garlic.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Disturbing': SC asks YouTubers who joked about disabled to attend next hearing too
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday reiterated its call for framing guidelines for social media users, balancing freedom of speech and expression with rights and duties. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this as it heard a plea by M/s SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Cure Foundation accusing YouTubers Samay Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar and Nishant Jagdish Tanwar of cracking insensitive jokes on persons with disabilities (PwDs). Complying with the court's direction during the last hearing, the five appeared before the Bench Tuesday. The Supreme Court gave them two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and directed all except Sonali Thakkar to appear again before the bench on the next date of hearing. Thakkar has been allowed to appear online. 'Respondents number 6-10 are present in court in compliance with our order. Their counsel seeks and is granted two weeks to file counter-affidavit… No further time shall be granted… Respondents 6-8 and 10 shall remain present in person on the next date as well. Any absence shall be viewed seriously. Respondent No.9 (Sonali Thakkar) is permitted to appear online,' the bench said in its order. Justice Kant said, 'Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined. (SMA Cure) Foundation has raised serious issues. Something very disturbing.' The court is also seized of two other petitions by YouTubers Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani for clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with allegedly objectionable remarks made on 'India's Got Latent' show. In May, the court while hearing Allahabadia's plea to club the FIRs against him had flagged the need to put regulations in place for social media use. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter. On Tuesday, the Attorney General sought more time to assist the court. He said the question of their enforceability will have to be considered at length. Allowing the request, Justice Kant said, 'We would like to test the guidelines… You have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts — where the limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start… We would like to invite open debate on that… Members of Bar, stakeholders and all so-called stakeholders, all invited.' He sought to stress that Article 21, which deals with the right to life and liberty, would prevail over Article 19, which deals with freedom of speech and expression. 'Right to dignity also emanates from the right which someone else is claiming… Article 19 can't overpower Article 21… Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place,' said Justice Kant. He also pointed to the need to ensure that the guidelines are not misused. 'What we are doing is for posterity. What we do should not be misused by anyone, you have to ensure that too. There has to be a balance. We have to protect citizens' rights,' Justice Kant remarked. Apology before NCW YouTuber Samay Raina appeared before the National Commission for Women (NCW) on Tuesday and submitted a written apology over remarks deemed disrespectful to women in his show 'India's Got Latent'. The NCW summoned Raina over objectionable content in the programme aired on an online platform. During the hearing before NCW chairperson Vijay Rahatkar, Raina expressed regret for his comments and assured the Commission that he would avoid such statements in the future, according to a statement. He also agreed to create content that upholds the dignity of women and spreads awareness about their rights and respect, the NCW statement said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Marriages sacrosanct in Hinduism, but strained by trivial disputes, says HC quashing dowry case
1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that Hindu marriages, regarded as spiritual unions, are increasingly under threat from trivial disputes and prolonged litigation. While quashing a dowry harassment case filed in December 2023 against a Nagpur man and his family, the court noted such discord often causes irreversible damage to families and must be resolved with dignity, where reconciliation is not possible. The division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar passed the order on July 8 in response to a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered at Beltarodi police station under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural offences) of IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act — all non-compoundable offences. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR, as the couple informed they had obtained a mutual divorce and settled their differences. "Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in society due to various factors," the bench observed. "Small issues between two individuals are spoiling lives, and marriages, which are sacrosanct in Hinduism." Noting that marriage is more than a social contract, the judges said, "It is a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, nowadays, these sacred marriages receive setbacks in such circumstances. The distress, disharmony, and lack of adjustment among individuals lead to conflict." The court pointed to misuse of matrimonial laws, saying that legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Special Marriage Act, though well-intentioned, is being misapplied. "This results in multiplicity of litigation, mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss, and irreversible harm to children and other family members," the bench noted. It criticised the tendency of naming multiple family members of the husband in such cases, calling it a growing trend that demands a different judicial perspective. "If parties can settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the duty of courts to encourage such action," the judges said. Referring to Supreme Court's State of Maharashtra versus Chandrabhan case, the bench reiterated the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution is not limited to mere survival. "In matrimonial disputes, if reunion is not possible, it should be put to an end as early as possible. Otherwise, lives of individuals involved will be ruined, which would be violative of Article 21," the order stated. Emphasising the importance of peaceful closure, the court held that continuing criminal proceedings in such settled cases serves no public interest. "The court should support a respectful settlement to terminate litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty," it concluded.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Savarkar remarks: HC refuses to issue directions to Rahul
Mumbai: Bombay high court has declined to issue any direction to opposition leader on his utterances against late Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. "This court cannot issue any direction to respondent no 1 (Gandhi) to study the contents of this public interest litigation and to remove ignorance about the contribution of Shri Vinayak Savarkar,'' said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The PIL was by Pankaj Phadnis, president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, a policy think tank, saying his legal rights as well as that of a large number of citizens to fulfil their fundamental duty under Article 51A(b) was impeded by Gandhi's statements about Savarkar. Article 51A(b) focuses on the duty 'to cherish and follow noble ideals that inspired our national struggle for freedom.' Phadnis referred to Gandhi's May 28 statement that Savarkar considered Muslims traitors. He referred to a Feb 8, 1944, US consulate interview in which Savarkar said the aim of the Hindu Mahasabha is to preserve the integrity of India and its Hindu character with due regard to the rights of all minorities including the Muslims. "Such a man cannot be considered a traitor," said Phadnis. He said the late PM Indira Gandhi praised Savarkar's daring defiance of the British govt. Phadnis had urged HC to direct Gandhi "to personally go through the contents of this petition …to remove ignorance about the contribution of Savarkar to the…nation and to provide proof of his study by a reasoned reply." The judges asked whether they could compel Gandhi to read his petition. Phadnis said, "Leader of the opposition in a democracy can potentially be tomorrow a prime minister. Such a person with this knowledge will create havoc. He cannot misrepresent and mislead citizens. He is creating confusion." The judges noted that Phadnis' petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on May 27. A defamation case against Gandhi is pending before a Pune magistrate. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Phadnis can take "recourse to such remedy as may be available in law to ventilate his grievances," the judges said. Phadnis had also urged the Centre to include Savarkar's name in the schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Use) Act. Declining to issue any direction, the judges said HC cannot issue a writ to the legislature either to amend the law to include Savarkar's name in the schedule.
