Political commentator and Delhi University academic Apoorvanand Jha, along with columnist Aakar Patel, have filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments. These directives mandate that owners of eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route must display their names outside their establishments.

"The directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand cause disproportionate intervention and affect rights under Articles 14, 15 and 17. Further the directives also effect rights of those Muslim men who have been fired pursuant to the issuance of the above directives, which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g).

Lastly the directives are also in violation of peoples' right to privacy and to dignity, and consequently violative of Article 21 of the Constitution," the petition by Jha and Patel states.

The State governments issued this directive recently as part of the preparations for the annual Kanwar Yatra, a pilgrimage undertaken by devotees of Shiva, known as Kanwarias or "Bhole."

During this pilgrimage, devotees travel to significant Hindu pilgrimage sites including Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri in Uttarakhand, as well as Ajgaibinath in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, Bihar, to collect holy water from the Ganges River.

Initially characterized as 'voluntary,' the directive from the state governments has garnered widespread support from state officials and is now being strictly enforced throughout all districts of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Furthermore, as of July 19/20, 2024, the Uttarakhand Government has issued an oral advisory in support of this directive.

On July 18, 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, issued a directive mandating that all eateries along the Kanwar route display the owners' names. This directive was subsequently extended statewide on July 19, 2024.

In their petition, Jha and Patel contend that the directives issued by the state governments result in disproportionate intervention and infringe upon the Fundamental Rights of citizens as guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Constitution.

“Impugned directives encourage discrimination on grounds of caste and religion and cannot be seen to serve any 'legitimate purpose.' These directives promotes discrimination solely based on religious and caste identity, as they do not require the display of food items being served or a statement that no non-vegetarian or non-satvik food is being served, but only the display of religious or caste identity explicit in one's name. This directly breaches Article 15 of the Constitution of India”, 

The petition asserts that the contested directives have been enforced with undue force by overzealous police officers, with non-compliance reportedly leading to detentions. It also claims that the requirement to display names has been accompanied by pressures on business owners to dismiss employees from specific communities.

The petition filed through AoR Akriti Chaubey states the directives endorse the practice of 'untouchability' which is explicitly barred “in any form” under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.

The petition argues that Article 17 of the Constitution prohibits the enforcement of any form of discrimination arising from 'untouchability,' which encompasses practices that discourage being served by individuals of certain castes and religions. Additionally, it contends that these directives infringe upon the right to privacy of shop and eatery owners and workers, exposing them to potential danger and making them targets.