In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has taken up a writ petition challenging the ban on Halal-certified products in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The petition, filed by Halal India Pvt. Ltd., contends that the ban, implemented last November, has far-reaching implications on interstate trade, industry, and consumers, urging the court to intervene.

The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice on the plea, with the petitioner's senior advocate highlighting the pan-India effect of the ban. The petitioner argued that if the High Court were to stay the notification, it would impact the entire nation. Additionally, concerns were raised about similar demands for bans emerging in other states.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioner, emphasized the national implications of the ban, affecting a community across the country. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and set a two-week timeline for the return of the notice. However, the court refrained from passing any interim order preventing coercive action under the ban, asserting that such matters would be considered later.

Last November, the State of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on the production, storage, distribution, and sale of Halal-certified products within its limits. Notably, the ban excluded products intended for export. The Halal certification ensures that a product adheres to Islamic law, guaranteeing its permissibility and purity, with no use of prohibited (haram) substances.

Halal certification in India is issued by private bodies, distinguishing it from Muslim-majority countries where governmental agencies are often responsible for this process. The notification from the Additional Chief Secretary, Food Safety and Drug Administration (FSDA), Uttar Pradesh, justified the ban under Section 30(2)(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, citing public health concerns.

The notification argued that Halal certification creates confusion about food quality, as it operates parallel to statutory institutions responsible for ensuring food standards. It contended that this parallel system contradicts the basic intention of the Food Safety and Standards Act and is not tenable under Section 89 of the Act, which establishes the Act's preferential effect over other legal provisions.

Section 89 of the Act explicitly states that its provisions will take precedence over any inconsistent provisions in other laws or instruments, emphasizing the authority vested in Section 29 for determining the quality of food items.

Case: Halal India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh.