The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners’ identities, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh disposed of the interlocutory applications filed against the directives. It reiterated that the eateries must display their licences and registration certificates as required by law.

“We are told that today is the last day of the yatra,” Live Law quoted the bench as saying on Tuesday. “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.”

During the Kanwar Yatra, devotees, called Kanwariyas, walk hundreds of kilometres to collect water from the Ganga near Haridwar and carry it back to their home states to offer at temples.

The devotees mainly come from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh.

This year’s Kanwar Yatra started on July 11.

The applications in the court were moved in the writ petitions filed in 2024 against directions to display the names of owners and staff, Live Law reported.

The applications were filed by Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand and activist Aakar Patel. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and the Association of Protection of Civil Rights were the other petitioners, Live Law reported.

The applications argued that the mandate violated the 2024 interim order of court that prohibited forcing vendors to disclose their identities.

The QR codes, now being made mandatory for food stalls and eateries along the pilgrimage route, would enable pilgrims and others to access personal details of business owners, said the applications.

It contended that this not only undermines the spirit of the court’s stay but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licencing requirements.

The applications claimed that the governments’ orders violate the fundamental right to privacy and dignity.

It pointed out that while vendors are legally required to display licences, those are meant to be posted inside their premises, not put up prominently outside or through public QR codes.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, said that the authorities should have sought the modification of the 2024 order before issuing the directives on the QR code, Live Law reported.

Singhvi also asked how the surname of an owner of an eatery was supposed to ensure good service, adding that the only intent was “to cause religious profiling”. He asked how the identity of a person could be deemed offensive.

The advocate also referred to reports about shops being allegedly attacked, adding: “When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace.”

The governments’ directives were unconstitutional as they created divisiveness based on identity and violated the fundamental right to trade, he argued, adding that it was also a “direct assault” on the principle of secularism, Live Law reported.

Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, said that the directions were issued as per the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

Rohatgi also claimed that a few dhabas that used to sell meat were misrepresenting themselves by saying that they were selling only vegetarian food. This had offended the sentiments of devotees, he claimed.

However, advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, noted that the eateries could only sell vegetarian items as per the local regulations during this period. But the court said that a customer should know if a place was exclusively selling vegetarian items throughout.

“If a hotel is running as a vegetarian hotel all through, then the question of indicating names and other things will not arise,” Live Law quoted Sundresh as saying. “But if only for the purpose of yatra, somebody stops serving non-veg and starts selling veg, the consumer should know.”

Ahmadi also asked what was the necessity of revealing the identities of the owners and the staff, adding that the mandate for the disclosure of the names was to understand the religious identity.

“What happens on the ground is...when this sort of a message goes...if religion is to be considered as a factor, this is promoting untouchability through the backdoor,” Live Law quoted Ahmadi as saying.

Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi, representing the Uttarakhand government, defended the directions issued by the state. Another counsel for the state government claimed that that the real problem was dhabas named “Shiva Dhaba” or “Parvati Dhaba” being run by Muslim.

“Please, don’t embarrass us like this,” the bench said without entertaining the submission.

Also read: Kanwar yatra food directive is unconstitutional – and the police know this