Supreme Court refuses to halt QR code order for Kanwar Yatra eateries for now
"We are told that today is the last day of the yatra... 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 top court said.The Kanwar Yatra, which began on July 11, coinciding with the first day of the holy month of Sawan, sees devotees walk large stretches to fetch holy water from the River Ganga to offer to Shivlings. During this yatra, devotees avoid the consumption of meat.In view of this, the Yogi Adityanath-led government issued an order last month mandating eateries to display QR codes containing details about their owners. The Uttarakhand government also followed suit.The directives were challenged in the Supreme Court by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others, who contended that it would lead to discriminatory profiling.Last week, the top court issued notices to the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.A similar diktat issued last year, mandating eateries to display names of owners outside the shops along the Kanwar Yatra route, was stayed by the Supreme Court.Then, the top court had said the eateries only required to indicate the type of food they were offering.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Not here to beg, it is our right: Farooq on statehood demand
Demanding that J&K's statehood be restored immediately, former CM Farooq Abdullah said Wednesday that the 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 was 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' and emphasised that the distance between Delhi and Kashmir 'has never reduced'. At a public meeting, organised by the Forum for Human Rights in J&K, in Delhi, Abdullah, who is also the NC president, said, 'Whether it is Article 370 or statehood, the basic issue is that the distance between Delhi and Kashmir has never reduced. From the day we became part of India, that distance has only grown. There is no trust — there is no trust in the Muslim.' On the demand for statehood, he said: 'We are not here to beg. It is our right as Indians. Restore our statehood. What you've done is unconstitutional. The governor himself said he didn't know the law — is this how you dismantle a state?' 'Today, we are looked at through the lens of what language we speak, which religion we belong to. This is not my India. Despite sharing a religious identity with Pakistan, we chose Gandhi. I wish those leaders could rise from their graves to see what India has become…' Abdullah said. J&K Deputy CM Surinder Choudhary described the region's current status as: 'India calls J&K its head — but that head has suffered a serious injury.' 'I still don't understand under what law a state has been turned into a municipality,' he said. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment upholding Article 370 abrogation, Congress MP Manish Tewari said, 'The SC said the proper procedure was not followed in removing Article 370, but still upheld it… This is a judgment that needs to be reviewed.' CPI(M) leader Yusuf Tarigami said, 'What is the condition of our Assembly? On July 13, the CM was locked up. The homes of elected representatives were bolted. Has such a thing ever happened anywhere else?'
Economic Times
14 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Your Honour, that's misogyny talking
We often witness flashes of patriarchy and misogyny, only to dismiss them as outliers, or view them as symptoms of a society in transition. But when those moments emanate from institutions, we seek remedy - such as the Supreme Court - then it becomes necessary to question them. On Tuesday, while hearing an alimony case, CJI B R Gavai expressed his incredulity that a 'well-educated' woman was demanding a divorce settlement from her husband. His outburst reflects a mindset that cannot fathom the possibility that a woman could have contributed to her husband's wealth and is, thus, a rightful claimant to a share upon the dissolution of their is not the first time that top court judges have made observations that reflect a skewed view. A few months ago, Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim bail to a 23-year-old man accused of rape. By their account, a 40-year-old woman 'is no baby', and her complaint - considered credible by the police - was deficient because 'a single hand can't clap'. Unfortunately, examples of such egregious gender insensitivity veering towards misogyny crop up far too often in the higher stereotypes - more so those rooted in gender - hinder the transformative project of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is guardian of the Constitution, which recognises equality as a right. Not only does the apex court guard the integrity of the Constitution, it also provides a moral compass for society. In 2023, it recognised the need for gender sensitisation, producing a booklet for the legal community with the aim of 'actively challenging and dispelling harmful stereotypes on the basis of gender'. Perhaps it's time for judges to read this publication - so that the courts can live up to their promise.
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
