On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India asked the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to respond to a petition challenging their directive that all restaurants and dhabas along the Kanwar Yatra route must display QR codes identifying the owners.

This move sparked a legal debate over privacy, discrimination, and individual rights on a religious pilgrimage route frequented by millions of devotees every year.

QR Code Order Faces Legal Challenge

The directive mandates every food outlet on the Kanwar route to display a QR code containing the owner’s name and identity. The instruction, issued by the UP government in June, has been challenged by civil society members and activists, including Professor Apoorvanand, Mahua Moitra, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).

Their joint petitions argue that compelling sellers to disclose their identity violates the Supreme Court’s previous orders and breaches the right to privacy.

The matter was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice M. Kothiswar Singh. The court has issued notices to both state governments, asking for a formal reply.

Background: Previous SC Order Had Barred Identity Disclosure

In July last year, the Supreme Court had stayed similar directives issued by BJP-ruled states—Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh. These directives had called for eateries on the Kanwar route to publicly display details about the restaurant owners and their employees.

That earlier stay order emphasized that no vendor or restaurant operator could be forced to disclose personal identity information unless mandated under due legal process.

Despite this, the UP administration released a press statement on June 25, renewing the mandate. The new order required eateries to display QR codes with owner details, allegedly to ensure transparency and safety during the pilgrimage.

This has now led to a direct conflict between the court’s previous ruling and the state’s new enforcement measures.

Petitioners Oppose Forced Disclosure

In his fresh plea, Professor Apoorvanand stated that the QR code directive contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision. The earlier ruling clearly held that disclosing one’s religious or personal identity at a commercial establishment was not mandatory unless justified under law.

The current petition states the QR code directive is unconstitutional and discriminatory, especially when targeted at establishments along a religious route.

Further, it claims that such enforcement violates the right to privacy, enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Religious Sensitivities and Food Practices in Focus

The Kanwar Yatra is a sacred pilgrimage undertaken by millions of Lord Shiva devotees during the Hindu month of Shravan. Devotees carry holy water from the Ganges and offer it at Shiva temples across North India.

During this time, many pilgrims refrain from consuming meat, onion, and garlic. Several local bodies and religious organizations also issue appeals asking eateries along the route to serve only vegetarian food.

The state governments have cited public sentiment and religious sensitivity as the rationale for ensuring transparency among food outlets. However, critics argue that this amounts to targeted profiling and creates a communal atmosphere.

Court Sets July 22 for Next Hearing

After hearing initial arguments, the bench has adjourned the matter for further hearing on July 22, 2025. The UP government has also sought additional time to submit its official response.

The petitioners have demanded that the Supreme Court reinstate its 2024 ruling and prohibit any new mandates that force disclosure of identity based on religious or communal grounds.

The matter remains under judicial scrutiny and is likely to have implications on freedom of business, privacy laws, and religious harmony, particularly in states witnessing heightened political activity around pilgrimage events.

What is the UP Government’s Justification?

The UP administration has defended the QR code mandate as a security measure. According to officials, this helps authorities verify the identity of food vendors and ensure that no “anti-social elements” misuse the pilgrimage route.

The administration claims that QR-based identification will help control food adulteration, monitor license validity, and prevent illegal establishments from functioning without government approval.

However, the petitioners argue that these objectives can be achieved through routine inspections rather than public display of personal data.

They also express concern that such policies will lead to targeted harassment, particularly of minority-owned establishments.

Civil Rights Groups Raise Alarm

The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has termed the QR code directive an “indirect profiling tool” designed to divide communities on religious lines. Mahua Moitra, another petitioner, called the move a clear violation of constitutional freedoms.

They demand that the state refrain from enforcing such policies during sensitive religious periods, especially when communal sentiments are high.

Legal experts watching the case say the final decision will set a precedent on whether religious sentiments can justify infringement on individual freedoms and privacy.

Business Owners Caught in Crossfire

Many restaurant and dhaba owners on the Kanwar route say they are confused about the order. Some complied to avoid police action, while others removed the QR codes after learning about the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

A restaurant owner in western UP said, “We serve food, not religion. We don’t want trouble. We follow the law.”

Another eatery manager said, “We heard there’s a case in the Supreme Court. We just want clarity.”

The issue also carries political weight, especially in poll-bound states like UP and Uttarakhand. Religious pilgrimages like the Kanwar Yatra often become focal points of larger debates on majoritarian politics, identity, and nationalism.

Observers believe that the final verdict may influence how governments regulate businesses during religious festivals and how far the state can go to align with religious sensitivities without breaching constitutional rights.