"Consumer Is King": Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With QR Code Order On Kanwar Route

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the decision of the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand government directing the eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes which would enable the pilgrims to know the details of the owners and well as the staff employed. 

The top court disposed the application against the QR code directives noting that this was the last day of the Kanwar Yatra. However, the court left the main issue of whether government can force vendors to disclose names and identity pending. 

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh disposed of the interlocutory applications filed challenging the mandate issued by the authorities. 

Saying that consumer is king, the top court advocated for customers' right to know about the ingredients and preparation methods used in the food being served at restaurants, including whether the place was serving non-vegetarian food earlier. 

Only for the purpose of the Yatra, if someone changes from non-veg to veg, then the customers should know, the Supreme Court said. 

Essentially considering that Kanwar Yatra is ending today, the Supreme Court refused to go into the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand authorities. 

The bench also clarified that the sellers must display their licenses and registration certificates as required by the law.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for different petitioners, including academic Apoorvanand Jha. 

The petitioner termed this move by the state governments "the worst kind of religious profiling" and an attempt to promote "untouchability" from backdoor. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Uttar Pradesh. He defended the move saying that Kanwariyas are sentimental people and we are living in a country where a person won't eat his own brother's house if he knows that they cook meat in their kitchen. 

Mr Singhvi, appearing for petitioners, argued that forcing vendors to publicly display names of owners and employees amounted to unconstitutional identity-based discrimination.

"There is anonymity of the marketplace. You are trying to ostracise establishments owned by minorities," Mr Singhvi argued, calling the move a "direct assault" on Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 and the basic structure doctrine.

Mr Ahmadi further argued restrictions on serving non-vegetarian food during the Kanwar Yatra could be considered reasonable, but identity disclosure was a separate and constitutionally suspect matter.

When an intervening counsel remarked that a dhaba with a Hindu name was being run by a Muslim and that this was the root cause of problem, Justice Sundresh bluntly responded: "Please don't embarrass us with such submissions." 

Justice MM Sundresh further remarked, "I'm agnostic. I have no problem. But my friend wouldn't eat at a place that even touches garlic or onion. Consumer interest matters."

Justice Sundresh highlighted the importance of transparency for consumers while still balancing the rights of business owners. "Consumer is the king," he remarked, indicating that they have a right to know whether a hotel serves vegetarian food only during Shravan or throughout the year; and that such information could be drawn from licenses already required under law.