Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court today during the hearing of the pleas contesting the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on halal-certified products that halal-certified products are more expensive and that the Court may need to take into account the problem of people nationwide being forced to purchase more expensive halal-certified products simply because a select few demand them.

The case was heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, who noted that the petitioners were already shielded from coercive action by the Court's previous order(s) and scheduled a hearing for the week of March 24. The Court allowed time for the filing of a rebuttal and asked the respondent-Union to serve copies of its affidavit on the petitioners.

The case was heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, who noted that the petitioners were already shielded from coercive action by the Court's previous order(s) and scheduled a hearing for the week of March 24. The Court allowed time for the filing of a rebuttal and asked the respondent-Union to serve copies of its affidavit on the petitioners.

According to the SG, "even atta (wheat flour), besan (chickpea flour) has to be halal-certified...how can besan be halal or non-halal?" he continued, accusing halal certification firms of making "few lakh crores" off of the certification process.

In response, petitioners' Senior Advocate MR Shamshad argued that halal is described in detail in the Central government's policy and that halal certification is not limited to non-vegetarian foods. "Central government policy itself says it's a matter of lifestyle" , he stated. The senior counsel used the examples of using alcoholic ingredients as preservatives in products and passing charcoal gas through water to give it a shimmering or shining appearance in order to bolster the claims.

The SG then brought up a more significant point that the Court might need to take into account: why should non-believers in the remainder of the nation who do not eat halal be forced to pay more for halal-certified goods just because fewer people want them to be so certified? Petitioners' attorneys retorted that it is not required to consume halal-certified goods. Instead, it comes down to personal preference.

Background

The Uttar Pradesh government's Food Security and Drug Administration banned the "manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products with immediate effect" on November 18. The government reportedly used a complaint filed in Lucknow by a representative of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) youth wing to support its decision, accusing halal certifying bodies of issuing "forged" certificates in order to increase sales among Muslims. Importantly, the prohibition excludes export goods and only covers sales, production, and storage in Uttar Pradesh. The alert says:

"Food with a Halal certification is prohibited within the borders of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with Section 30(2)(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, in the exercise of the authority granted by Section 30(2)(a) of the aforementioned Act, with the purpose of protecting public health." The production, distribution, storage, and sale of goods are all immediately prohibited (with the exception of food manufactured for export to the exporter).

The state administration eventually gave shopkeepers a 15-day grace period to remove halal-certified products from their shelves in response to the outrage and possible inconveniences created by the ban. Furthermore, 92 state-based firms who obtained halal certification from non-certified organizations were instructed by the government to repackage and recall their goods.

Organizations like the Halal Shariat Islamic Law Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's Halal Unit offer halal certificates, which attest to a product's suitability for ingestion by Muslims. The National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies-accredited organizations vehemently objected to the government's choice. Due to the government's action, Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-e-Maharashtra have also filed a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. In their writ petition(s), these petitioners have challenged the unconstitutionality of the ban and asked the top court to step in.

Case Title: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 24 of 2024 (and connected cases)