During the proceedings, Mehta expressed his astonishment, stating that he was "shocked" to discover that even products like cement and iron bars require halal certification. He argued that while halal certification for meat products is understandable, extending it to non-food items imposes additional costs on consumers who do not follow halal dietary laws. Mehta highlighted that halal-certifying agencies have amassed significant revenues through this practice, suggesting that the total amount collected could be substantial.
The context for this discussion stems from a notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh government on November 18, 2023, which prohibited the manufacturing, storage, sale, and distribution of food products with halal certification within the state, except for items produced for export. This notification has been challenged in the Supreme Court by several petitioners, including Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind Halal Trust, who argue that the ban infringes upon their rights and adversely affects their businesses.
In response to Mehta's submissions, Senior Advocate M R Shamshad, representing the petitioners, contended that halal certification is a matter of personal choice and lifestyle, as outlined in the central government's policy. He emphasized that no one is compelled to purchase halal-certified products and that the certification process is voluntary. Shamshad further explained that halal certification extends beyond meat products to various items, including food products like wheat flour and gram flour, to cater to the preferences of consumers who observe halal practices.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, took note of the arguments presented and acknowledged the complexities involved in the matter. The bench was informed that the central government had filed an affidavit stating that the issue falls under the jurisdiction of the state government and that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has no direct role in the enforcement or regulation of halal certifications. The court granted the petitioners four weeks to file a rejoinder and scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing March 24.