Signboards Or Bulldozer, Yogi Cannot Be Stopped — From Following The Law

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court stayed the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government's directive requiring eateries along the Kanwariya pilgrim route to display the names of their owners and staff. The court initially issued the stay on 22 July and extended the interim order on 26 July until 5 August.

On the 5 August hearing, it extended the interim order once more and never heard the case again.

This was seen as a setback to Chief Minister (CM) Yogi Adityanath.

However, Yogi appears keen to get eateries to display the names of their owners.

The UP government passed an order on Tuesday (24 September), directing all food outlets in the state to visibly display the names and addresses of their operators, proprietors, and managers. (Coincidentally, this comes after multiple cases of food contamination over recent months in the state).

With this order, the Kanwar route order case becomes virtually irrelevant as the Hindu holy month of Shravan, when Kanwar pilgrims travel to fetch water from rivers for Lord Shiva, ended on 19 August.

However, since then, multiple incidents of allegedly mixing urine or spitting on food have come to light in UP.

Yogi Adityanath seemed well aware of these incidents when he commented in Gorakhpur last week while inaugurating a floating hotel in Ramgarh Tal that — "here you won't get Hapur juice (allegedly urine mixed) and thook (spat on) rotis (like in Saharanpur)."

A few days later, his administration has come up with guidelines like display of names, wearing of masks and gloves by chefs and waiters, installation of CCTV cameras, inspection of all hotels and restaurants and police verification of their employees to ensure food safety.

Adityanath also affirmed that amendments will be made to the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 to implement these orders if needed. This proactive consideration might have stemmed from the Supreme Court's earlier stay.

This is because, In India, there are strict regulations for displaying manufacturers' names and other details on packaged food items, but the rules are more lenient for unpackaged food, such as those sold at eateries.

Yes, to start or operate any food business, unless it’s a very small venture like a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor, or temporary stallholder, one needs a license. To obtain the license, all relevant details, including the business owner's name, must be provided. However, the display of these details is not mandated under the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006.

This is where the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 comes in, requiring that every direct seller truthfully and clearly identify themselves.

A direct seller is also obligated to provide their name, address, registration or enrollment number, identity proof, and contact information. Additionally, it is their duty not to make any representations that could mislead the consumer.

Although there is no direct law requiring eateries to display names, the Yogi government could take inspiration from the Consumer Protection Act and amend the Food Safety Act to introduce a similar rule for eateries, if necessary.

In principle, the law appears to be on Adityanath's side.

A similar case can also be made out in reference to another order of the Supreme Court, passed last week, which paused 'unauthorised' bulldozer demolitions of private property nationwide until 1 October.

While this order was for the whole nation, it is closely related to Uttar Pradesh and Yogi Adityanath, who made the 'bulldozer justice' popular across the country, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in other states following suit.

However, one condition in the Supreme Court's order provides an opening for the UP government. The court stated that the order would not apply to unauthorised constructions on public streets, footpaths, alongside railway lines, or in public spaces.

This is typically the case. When demolition is carried out on the property of an accused, only the portions or structures that are illegally built or encroach on public spaces are demolished.

For example, when bulldozer action was taken against rape-accused Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Moeed Khan in Ayodhya, only the portion of his bakery that was illegally built on pond land, a public space, was demolished.

In fact, during the Supreme Court hearing, the UP government submitted that all 'bulldozer' demolitions were conducted following the word of law. This stance was reportedly appreciated by the Bench as well.

Therefore, there is no stay on the demolition of illegal structures, as long as it is carried out according to the law. Whether the demolition occurs after someone is accused in a case or not, an illegal structure remains illegal both before and after.

As the court said, “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused?” it can also be argued, 'How can an illegal house not be demolished just because he is accused?'

For the moment it seems that Yogi Adityanath is moving along steadily on his chosen path, upholding the flag of the law all the while.