News18
Last Updated:
Kanwar Yatra 2024: Devotees of Lord Shiva from across the country participate in this auspicious yatra. (Image: Shutterstock)
Supreme Court hears plea against UP government’s directive on Kanwar Yatra eateries. Opposition criticises move as communal, divisive ahead of Parliament session
The Supreme Court on Monday started hearing a plea against the Uttar Pradesh government’s order that eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route must display the names of their owners.
The row over the directive by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments asking eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their owners’ names escalated. The issue reached the apex court after a plea was filed by an NGO – Association of Protection of Civil Rights – against the UP government order.
“It’s a worrying situation, the police authorities are taking it upon themselves to create a divide so that socially backward, minorities go into an economic divide,” senior advocate CU Singh said in the top court. Arguing for the petitioners, another advocate Abhishek Singhvi said, “If I don’t put my name I’m excluded, if I put my name, I’m excluded.”
Extensive arrangements have been made across several states for the Kanwar Yatra that starts on Monday with the beginning of the Sawan month of the Hindu calendar during which lakhs of Shiva devotees carry the holy water from the Ganges in Haridwar to their homes while offering it at Shiva temples on their way.
On Sunday, BJP’s ally RLD joined the chorus for its withdrawal and the opposition parties stated they will raise the issue in Parliament. The opposition has alleged that the order on eateries is “communal and divisive” and intended to target Muslims and Scheduled Castes by forcing them to reveal their identity. But the BJP maintained that the step has been taken keeping in mind law and order issues and the religious sentiments of pilgrims.
At an all-party meeting on Sunday on the eve of the Parliament session, several opposition parties, including the Congress, DMK, SP and AAP, criticised the order and made it clear that they would raise the issue in the two Houses. They demanded that the government should allow a discussion on it in Parliament.