SC sends notice to UP govt on plea over QR code directive for eateries along 'kanwar' yatra route
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued a notice to the state and scheduled the hearing for July 22 on a petition filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others.
Last year, the top court had stayed similar orders issued by BJP-ruled states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, which had directed food establishments along the yatra routes to display details of their owners, staff, and other personnel.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Undo
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.
Live Events
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
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
BJP set to announce new party president after August 15, four candidates among front-runners
NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party is set to announce the consensus candidate for the party's new national president after Independence Day, following the completion of organisational elections in some states. The delay in selecting the new president has created an unfavourable impression, even among party cadres. The RSS – the ideological mentor of the BJP – has reportedly advised reaching a consensus on a candidate with organisational experience and a neutral stance within the party. Sources also stated that the BJP has zeroed in on four potential candidates, all of whom have organisational experience. Union ministers Bhupendra Yadav, Dharmendra Pradhan, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and senior BJP leader BD Sharma are said to be the front-runners as they meet the criteria for the post. The party is preparing to first call a meeting of its central council to build a consensus around one of the names under consideration.
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Plea in SC says Bhopal gas victims are ‘misclassified'
A petition filed by the Bhopal gas disaster victims' rights groups claiming that survivors with lasting, severe injuries and illnesses have been wrongly classified under 'temporary disablement' and 'minor injury' and under-compensated for years has been lined up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The petition filed by organisations such as the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangharsh Morcha urged the top court to direct the Centre to identify these 'misclassified' victims and classify them correctly under the provisions of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 so that they receive adequate compensation to cover their medical treatment. The Centre has termed the Bhopal gas leak tragedy 'the world's largest industrial disaster'. Both the government and the Supreme Court have agreed the loss of innocent lives in the aftermath of the fatal escape of Methyl Isocynate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984 was 'horrific' in every sense. Centre's responsibility 'A long history of litigation attempting to recover damages from the U.S.-headquartered Union Carbide Corporation (now part of Dow Chemicals Corporation) ended with the dismissal by the Supreme Court of the curative petitions in July 2023 wherein it was made clear that any shortfall in compensation to be paid to the victims were a responsibility of the Union government,' the petition said. The organisations said they had data to show that survivors suffering from cancer and kidney failure as a result of toxic gas exposure were classified under the category of 'minor/temporary injury'. 'All these cases ought to have been added as a permanent disability category. Even as far back as in 1974, Union Carbide's internal document, titled MIC Plant Safety Considerations Report, had very clearly stated that in cases of inhalation of MIC 'major residual injury is likely in spite of prompt treatment'... This petition seeks to enforce that responsibility of the Union government, pointing out a certain category of cases in which the damages awarded and paid to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary,' the organisation submitted. The case was listed for hearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on July 14. However, the Bench did not assemble due to the inavailability of the Chief Justice. The case status shows the next date as July 18. The petitioners are represented by senior advocate S. Muralidhar and advocate Prasanna S. Focusing the extent of the disaster's impact on public health even decades later, the petition said records of the hospitals run by the government show that 'more than 30 years after the disaster, 95% of the population officially acknowledged to have been exposed to the toxic gas required hospital visits for their medical needs'. 'Data from the Central government-run hospital show that the incidence of heart ailments, neurology disorders, gastro and kidney ailments, psychiatric disorders and other chronic diseases is very high among gas-exposed patients. Records from eight community health units of the ICMR-run Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre [BMHRC] in Bhopal from 1998 to 2016 show that 50.4% of gas-affected patients suffer from cardiovascular problems and 59.6% suffer from pulmonary problems… In 2023 alone 2,06,016 gas victims visited the BMHRC,' the plea submitted.
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Last Updated: Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions. The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life. The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats. The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence. Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said. On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights. It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security. This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything? Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't. It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression. The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.' This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?" The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy 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.
