Following the Supreme Court's interim order stopping the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand directives requiring restaurants along the Kanwar Yatra routes to show the names of their owners and employees, misleading claims about an oral observation made by Justice SV Bhatti have been shared on social media platforms.
The bench, led by Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SV Bhatti, stated that restaurants need only show the type of food they serve.
What did Justice Bhatti say?: According to the legal news outlet, Live Law, Bhatti said, "There is one veg hotel run by a Hindu, and one run by a Muslim...in Kerala...As the judge of that state, I used to go the one run by the Muslim. He was maintaining international standards."
The Claim: Those sharing the Live Law screenshot inferred that Justice Bhatti said "only Muslim-owned restaurants practised good hygiene and Hindus don't".
Who shared it?: X (formerly Twitter) user @MrSinha_ and journalist Ajeet Bharti shared the claim on their profiles.
An archive of the post can be found here.
(Source: X/Screenshot)
(Archives of similar claims can be found here and here.)
Is this true?: No, the claims are misleading.
Justice Bhatti simply recounted one of his experiences that he 'used' to visit a Muslim-owned eatery in Kerala because the owner had returned from Dubai and hence practised international hygiene standards.
Neither did the Supreme Court justice generalise all Hindu-owned restaurants to suggest that they are unhygienic nor did he ask to boycott them.
.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
Court proceedings: At first, we went through the live blogging of the court proceedings on X (formerly Twitter) by Live Law and Bar and Bench.
Live Law: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said in the court that if a person served non-vegetarian food claiming to be a vegetarian restaurant, the person can go to jail.
To this, Advocate CU Singh representing the Association of Protection of Civil Rights, a non-profit organisation said that "some people don't consume garlic, etc."
To this, Singhvi replied, "Shops make it clear in such cases."
Following this exchange, Bhatti said, "There is one veg hotel run by a Hindu, and one run by a Muslim...in Kerala...As the judge of that state, I used to go the one run by the Muslim. He was maintaining international standards"
Similarly, Bar and Bench also reported the proceedings live on their X page on 22 July.
They, too, noted Bhatti's comment following the exchange by the advocates, "On that I am completely with you. Without disclosing the name of the city i will share with you. There were two vegetarian hotels, one by Hindu and one by Muslim. I went to the latter, because I preferred the hygiene standards there. He was a Dubai returnee. But he displayed everything on the board."
The Times of India also reported on this issue. They noted the judge's experience of visiting a vegetarian restaurant owned by a person belonging to the Muslim religion because it put everything on 'board' and their hygiene standards.
Here is an excerpt from the TOI report.
(Source: TOI/Screenshot)
So what is misleading in the claims: Those sharing suggested that Bhatti meant that all Hindu-owned restaurants were unhygienic and, hence, must be boycotted. They also noted that only Muslim-owned restaurants practised international standards of hygiene, giving it a communal tone after the SC put a stop on the controversial order of the UP and Uttarakhand governments.
However, nowhere in the entire proceedings has the SC justice criticised Hindu restaurant owners for having unhygienic conditions.
Bhatti simply shared his experience and did not generalise all restaurants owned by Hindus. He simply told the court his preference between the two restaurants in the city. He 'simply chose' the eatery owned by a Muslim because of the food standard and hygiene practices.
Additionally, Bhatti's observation did not reflect what the SC wanted to say. The discussion at the time was over a matter of choice and preference, and he simply narrated an instance.
Bhatti's comments have been taken out of context and given a communal tone to misrepresent what he said in court during the proceedings.
Conclusion: Social media users have given a misleading context to a statement made by Justice Bhatti during the proceeding of the order passed by UP and Uttarakhand governments during the Kanwar Yatra.
.jpg?rect=0%2C0%2C1920%2C1080&auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
(Not convinced of a post or information you came across online and want it verified? Send us the details on WhatsApp at 9540511818 , or e-mail it to us at webqoof@thequint.com and we'll fact-check it for you. You can also read all our fact-checked stories here.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)