jamiat-challenges-centre-s-remarks-on-halal-rules-in-sc

The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Halal Trust has raised concerns over the Central government’s statements in the Supreme Court regarding halal certification.

 

The Trust, one of the petitioners challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s ban on halal-certified products, has filed an affidavit objecting to remarks made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

 

During the last hearing, Mehta suggested that halal certifying agencies generate massive revenues and questioned whether the entire country should bear the costs of halal-certified products for the demands of a few.

 

The Trust argues that these statements were misleading and unfairly targeted the petitioners. It claims that such remarks led to media discussions that further tarnished the halal certification process.

 

The petitioner contends that the statements have created a negative perception of halal practices, enabling biased narratives in public discourse.

 

The affidavit highlights that the government’s submissions have caused serious harm to the concept of halal, which is an integral part of the lifestyle and dietary practices of a significant section of the population.

 

Seeking accountability, the petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the Central government to disclose which official instructed Mehta to make the statements. It asserts that these claims were made without proper basis and contradict official records.

 

The Trust argues that halal certification is a deeply rooted religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard religious beliefs and practices.

 

The petitioner also refutes the claim that halal certification is limited to non-vegetarian products or meant only for exports. It stresses that every Indian consumer has the right to know about the ingredients in the products they consume.

 

Many food and non-food products contain animal-based or alcohol-based components, making certification relevant for a wide range of items.

 

It explains that items such as bottled water, lipstick, biscuits, and tulsi water sometimes contain ingredients derived from animals, requiring halal certification. The petitioner argues that criticisms labelling these certifications as unnecessary stem from a lack of awareness about modern manufacturing processes.

 

Regarding the cases filed for violations of government orders, the petitioner asserts that these are an abuse of legal procedures. It denies the allegations that halal certification agencies are making exorbitant profits.

 

The affidavit includes financial records from 2009 to 2023, showing an average annual collection of around ₹2.07 crore, with a surplus of approximately ₹71.6 lakh. It emphasises that all financial transactions are declared to tax authorities, countering the government’s claim of unregulated financial gains.

 

Responding to concerns raised by the Solicitor General about halal certification for iron bars and cement, the petitioner clarifies that it has never issued such certifications. It challenges the government to provide evidence supporting this claim.

 

However, it acknowledges that some exporting companies request halal certification for materials used in food packaging, such as tin plates and food cans.

 

The certification, in such cases, is voluntary and issued only when the manufacturing process adheres to halal guidelines. The petitioner emphasises that such certifications are industry-driven and not imposed by the certifying body.

 

The petitioner also points out that halal certification is being selectively targeted while other certifications, such as Kosher, continue to be accepted in various parts of the country, including Uttar Pradesh.

 

It argues that the singling out of halal practices reflects an unfair approach that discriminates against a specific community’s dietary and religious preferences.

 

The controversy began on 18 November 2023, when the Uttar Pradesh government imposed a ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products within the state.

 

The government justified its decision by citing a complaint from a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s youth wing.

 

The complaint alleged that halal certifying bodies were issuing fraudulent certificates to promote sales among Muslims. However, the ban was limited to domestic sales within Uttar Pradesh and did not affect products meant for export.

 

In response to the outcry, the state government allowed a 15-day grace period for retailers to remove halal-certified products from their shelves.

 

Additionally, it instructed 92 manufacturers in Uttar Pradesh to recall and repackage their products if they had been certified by non-recognised organisations.

 

Halal certification is issued by organisations such as the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind Halal Unit and the Halal Shariat Islamic Law Board. These certificates assure consumers that a product meets Islamic dietary guidelines.

 

The ongoing legal battle reflects broader concerns about religious freedom, consumer rights, and the role of government in regulating food certification processes.