New Delhi, July 23 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the Uttar Pradesh government's decision mandating eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route to display QR codes with names of owners after it was challenged on the ground of promoting religious profiling of shop owners. The court, however, directed the hotel owners to display their license and registration certificate as required to be done under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 while posting the matter after two weeks for compliance of its order. The order was passed on separate applications filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and professor Apoorvanand Jha who have challenged a press note issued by the Uttar Pradesh government mandating names of owners to be displayed through QR code in front of the shops. Both Moitra and Jha said that the regulations issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) do not permit for QR coding. It cited a July 22, 2024 order issued by the top court which stayed a similar direction by the UP police last year directing the eatery owners to display their names and that of their employees in front of the shop. The court order directed that no eatery owner will be forced to display this information. The applications alleged that the present order issued by the UP commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA) was an attempt to "circumvent" the stay by introducing requirements for QR code. The bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said, "At this stage we only pass an order that all hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the license and registration certificate as required statutorily." When senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for one of the applicants sought a clarification that the name of owners and that of employees need not be displayed on QR code, the bench said, "All these issues are left open. We are not going into this issue. You may challenge it before the high court. In any case it is infructious. We are informed today is the last day of Yatra and in any case it is likely to end in near future." With the court not staying the UP government's decision on QR code, the fact remains that the administration will be free to enforce it with the option left open for the shop owners to approach the high court. The petitioners led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had objected to the UP press note issued last month which emphasized disclosure of names of the shop owner of eateries along the Kanwar route. Singhvi said, "This is all about identity politics. This is the most divisive policy to ostracise a minority community during this Yatra which alienates them. It sows the seeds of identity division, is a direct assault on secularism and is per se unconstitutional, violating right to equality, right to practice profession and right to life under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21." During this time of the year, he pointed out that all shops along the Kanwar route strictly sell only vegetarian food. "You can boycott a food based on the menu card, not on the identity of the owner. Before issuing this order, they ought to have sought permission from court for modification of the stay," he added. The UP government represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that the QR code requirement has been issued by the competent authority under Food Safety and Standards Act. The state submitted that not a single affected shop owner had approached the court as he questioned the right of the petitioners to challenge the state's direction. Rohatgi said, "These devotees are highly sentimental. They would not like to have food from a shop which used to serve non-vegetarian food till a month ago using the same utensils. Last year, there was a law and order problem and some shops were ransacked. We are simply applying the mandate under the Food Safety Regulations that require display of hotel's name and photo identity." The bench observed, "The sentiments of devotees should not be affected. At the same time, the livelihood of shopowners should not be affected too. The court has to strike a balance." The court was conscious that consumers need to be given the choice to decide whether they would prefer to eat from a 'pure vegetarian' hotel or the one that serves vegetarian food during this period of the year....