Healthy development, says Malik Mutasim Khan, general secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights; Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra describes it as a great victory for the constitution.
Waquar Hasan | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The stay imposed by the Supreme Court on the directions issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments mandating eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display names of their owners was welcomed by the petitioners with caution.
Malik Mutasim Khan, general secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), said while speaking to Clarion India that the interim order issued by the apex court on Monday should be welcomed. But the judiciary does not show consistency with regard to such issues, he said.
“Whatever the order was issued by Uttar Pradesh government officially or unofficially with regard to the Kanwar Yatra route violates the constitutions, rules and regulations and all other laws. The Supreme Court should have taken suo moto cognisance and issued directions. The interim stay on the orders is healthy development. But the courts gave few good orders in some days and later they pass such order which creates doubt in our mind,” said Khan.
APCR is among the three petitioners which challenged the nameplate orders of the UP and Uttarakhand governments in the Supreme Court. Other two petitioners are Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and well-known political commentator and Delhi’s Professor Apoorvanand Jha and columnist Aakar Patel.
Hearing the petitions, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti observed: “Until the returnable date…we deem it appropriate to pass interim order prohibiting the enforcement of the above directives. In other words, the food sellers (including dhaba owners, restaurants, shops, fruits and vegetable sellers, hawkers, etc.) may be required to display the kind of food that they are selling to the Kanwariyas. But they must not be forced to display the names/identities of owners or the staff deployed in those establishments”.
The court also issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh governments. The matter will be heard next on Friday.
Khan said that the stay order should be praised but the judiciary should show consistency in such issues.
“Such issue is raised not only one day. There should be a punishment and legalisation on the issues related to lynchings, economic boycotts and hate speeches. A law should be made in this regard like the laws related to SC/ST Act. The atmosphere remains conducive for one or two days. Again, the peace is disturbed. This kind of uncertainty and non-consistency is a bad thing for the country and Muslims. It will fail not only Muslims but also the whole country,” he said.
Mahua Moitra described the stay order “a great victory for the constitution and people of India”.
Calling the nameplate order “illegal” and “unconstitutional”, she said “Long live our Constitution. And may we always protect it”.
“This was an issue to create division between Hindus and Muslims and Dalit and Brahmins. We caught the government and the Supreme Court also caught it,” she said.
