Supreme Court Challenge Targets QR Code Mandate for Kanwar Yatra Eateries in UP, Uttarakhand

Introduction

So, picture this July 15, 2025. The Supreme Court’s got its hands full with a stack of petitions, all screaming about this new rule from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Basically, they want every eatery, dhaba, and random food stall lining the Kanwar Yatra path to slap a QR code on the front.

Anyone can scan it and, boom, up pops the owner’s name and all sorts of personal info. Creepy, right? Anyway, Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh weren’t having it easy. They’ve sent out notices to both state governments, like, “Hey, care to explain yourselves?” They’ve got a week to cough up their answers. Next showdown’s set for July 22. Get your popcorn, it’s gonna be interesting.

What Happened on the Kanwar Yatra Route

Picture this: every year, droves of devotees literally millions trek barefoot across dusty roads, just to scoop up some holy Ganges water. They balance it all on these flashy rods (Kanwars, if you wanna get technical) and lug it off to Shiva temples like it’s some kind of spiritual relay race.

Now, the real scene-stealer? All those pop-up food joints lining the route half of ’em are just families hustling under saggy tarps, slinging out dal-chawal to the hungry masses. Now toss in a curveball. Suddenly, the government wants every chai-wallah and samosa-slinger to slap a big ol’ QR code on their stall, basically tying their food stand to their personal info.

So you’ve got a father and son, sweating it out under a blue sheet, fiddling with printouts and tape at midnight so some random pilgrim can zap their phone and peek into their lives. Yeah, not creepy at all. Unsurprisingly, the stall owners are pissed.

They say it’s like being forced to wave around a sign with your home address out in the open, for anyone to see. There’s no actual law backing this up, they grumble. Plus, it feels like a straight-up violation of privacy, which, last time anyone checked, is supposed to be protected by the Constitution. But hey, who needs privacy when you’ve got bureaucracy, right?

For More Updates & Regular Notes, Join Our WhatsApp Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group (https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators): contact@legalmaestros.com.

The Legal Challenge

Alright, here’s the lowdown: Prof. Apoorvanand and Aakar Patel you know, the usual folks who actually give a damn about rights are basically rolling their eyes and going, “Really? We’re doing this again?”

This whole QR code circus? Total rerun. Supreme Court already slammed the brakes on something just like it last year, and now it’s back, like some knockoff with a cheap wig. Nobody’s fooled. They’re calling it out for what it is a sketchy attempt to single out small-time vendors, tagging them based on religion or caste, especially along this super religious pilgrimage route.

The petition isn’t beating around the bush, either. It basically screams, “Hey, splashing personal info all over the place is a disaster waiting to happen!” Think harassment, think mobs yeah, the works. And, shocker, it’s the minority vendors who get the short end of the stick every damn time.

Right to Privacy Under Article 21

Here’s the thing privacy isn’t just some fringe issue, it’s baked right into the Constitution. The Supreme Court basically said, hey, your right to privacy is part and parcel of your right to live free under Article 21.

In plain English? No one’s supposed to mess with your life or liberty unless there’s an actual law (and, yeah, they have to follow it). So, if somebody tries to force you to slap a QR code on yourself that flashes your info to every random stranger, and there’s no legit law backing that up… well, that’s probably stepping all over your constitutional rights. Not cool.

Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 43A

So, here’s the thing state governments keep saying those QR codes are all about “accountability” and making sure your food isn’t sketchy. Sounds nice, right? But, honestly, there’s no actual law that lets them toss around your personal info like confetti.

Meanwhile, Section 43A of the IT Act (that’s from way back in 2000, by the way) is pretty clear: if you’re handling sensitive personal data, you better have your security game on point. If someone slips up and your info leaks without your say-so? Yeah, they owe you compensation. So, forcing these QR codes on tiny shopkeepers? If anything, it just dumps liability in their laps instead of protecting anyone. Feels a bit backwards, doesn’t it?

Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 72A

Also, look Section 72A of that Act? It straight up says you can’t just spill someone’s personal info if you know you’re breaking a contract or don’t have their permission. Do it anyway, and you could be looking at up to three years in jail.

So if some rando or company starts messing around with QR code data, yeah, they’re not just risking a slap on the wrist. The law’s got real teeth here—kind of wild, considering it’s supposed to be all about protecting people, yet the same folks the State claims to shield could end up in hot water themselves. Go figure.

Balancing Regulation and Rights

Alright, so here’s the deal: Fans of this whole QR code thing claim it’s basically the same as those batch numbers on your bag of chips if someone gets food poisoning, boom, you scan the code, and the authorities can swoop in Sherlock-style.

Sounds handy, right? But then you’ve got folks on the other side rolling their eyes because, honestly, food safety rules already say vendors have to slap their licenses up inside their stalls. Why should someone’s name and phone number be plastered outside for all to see? That’s not food safety, that’s just putting people on blast.

What the Supreme Court Will Decide

So, next up July 22nd the Court’s basically going to grill everyone about whether the States even had the power to shove this QR code rule down people’s throats in the first place. And yeah, there’s gonna be a lot of talk about whether this whole thing stomps on folks’ basic rights like the right to work (Article 19(1)(g)) or, you know, just the right to live your life (Article 21).

Wouldn’t be shocking if the judges drag in privacy nerds or data protection experts to school them on all the digital nitty-gritty. Oh, and they might just punt it to the central government and say, “Hey, figure out some rules for this QR code circus so we don’t end up in court every five minutes.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s notice to the UP and Uttarakhand governments marks the start of an important debate on how far the State can go in demanding public display of personal data. At the heart of the matter is a simple question: does the right to know outweigh the right to privacy for a small food vendor? As millions of pilgrims prepare for the final days of this year’s Kanwar Yatra, the nation watches to see whether the Court will reaffirm that personal dignity cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience.