The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust, one of the petitioners contesting the Uttar Pradesh government's ban on halal-certified products, has raised objections before the Supreme Court. In its affidavit, the Trust has criticized the statements made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing that his remarks were misleading and created prejudice against the concept of halal certification.
During the previous hearing, SG Mehta suggested that halal certifying agencies earn "few lakh crores" from the certification process and questioned whether the entire country should bear the cost of halal-certified products merely because they are demanded by a few. The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust strongly disputes these claims and argues that such statements have fueled negative narratives in the media.
The Trust contends that the Central Government's statements have unfairly targeted and maligned halal certification agencies. Following these remarks, several media outlets engaged in discussions that further vilified the halal certification process, creating widespread misconceptions.
"Unfortunately, the Central Government has made misleading submissions which have created serious prejudice to the concept of halal and enabled the prejudiced media to create a narrative against the very concept of Halal," the affidavit states.
The petitioners also seek a directive from the Court asking the Central Government to disclose which official instructed the Solicitor General to make such statements, asserting that these remarks were "without any basis, inconsistent with the record, and contradictory to the public officials' sworn statements."
"This Hon'ble Court may direct the Central Government to disclose which officer instructed the Ld. Solicitor General to make such statements, as they have caused serious prejudice to the concept of Halal; which is considered to be one of the fundamental aspects of behavior and lifestyle for a significant section of the Indian citizenry."
The petitioner argues that halal certification is not limited to non-vegetarian products or exports but is an essential consumer right. They emphasize that consumers have the right to be informed about the ingredients in products they consume daily.
"It is also a matter of Right of an individual to be informed about the components used in edible products, whether it is vegetarian or non-vegetarian food."
The petition highlights that many products, including lipstick, tulsi water, biscuits, and packaged water bottles, undergo halal certification because they may contain ingredients derived from animal fat, alcohol-based extracts, or animal enzymes. The affidavit refutes the claim that such certifications are unnecessary and dismisses them as a "ridiculous expansion of halal certifications."
Addressing FIRs filed for violating the UP government’s notification, the petitioners argue that these cases amount to an abuse of legal process.
On the allegations that halal certifying agencies generate massive financial profits, the petitioner refutes these claims by providing financial data spanning 14 years (2009-2023). The data reveals an average annual collection of ₹2,07,83,304 and an average annual surplus of ₹71.6 lakhs, figures that are transparently filed with tax authorities.
Responding to the Solicitor General’s concerns over halal certification for water bottles, lipstick, and tulsi water, the petitioners explain that these products may contain ingredients derived from animal sources. For instance, water is filtered through carbon filters that could be made from animal bones. Hence, halal certification ensures compliance with religious dietary laws.
"After advancements in manufacturing, different components are used in various products, which may or may not be permitted under Islamic beliefs. Thus, halal certification is necessary for consumer awareness."
The affidavit categorically denies allegations that halal certification has been issued for iron bars and cement. It challenges the Centre to provide evidence supporting such claims. However, it clarifies that certain materials used in food packaging, such as tin plates and food cans, undergo halal certification at the request of exporting companies.
"It is not for the benefit of the petitioner. It is completely voluntary by the exporting company, on whose demand and requirement Halal Certificate is issued."
The petitioners highlight that while halal certification is being criticized, other certification systems like Kosher remain widely accepted and operational in India, including in Uttar Pradesh.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Overturns Bihar Legislative Council's Expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh
Background of the Case
On November 18, 2023, the Uttar Pradesh government banned the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of halal-certified products within the state. The decision was reportedly based on a complaint filed by a BJP youth wing representative, who alleged that halal certifying bodies were issuing "forged" certificates to boost sales among Muslim consumers. However, the ban does not apply to export products.
The official government notification stated:
"In compliance with Section 30(2)(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, and in exercise of the authority vested in Section 30(2)(a) of the said Act, in view of public health, food with Halal certification is being banned within the limits of Uttar Pradesh. A ban is imposed with immediate effect on the manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of such products (except food produced for export)."
Following backlash and concerns from retailers, the state government granted a 15-day grace period to withdraw halal-certified products from the market. Additionally, the government directed 92 manufacturers using halal certification from non-recognized organizations to recall and repackage their products.
Halal certification is provided by bodies such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's Halal Unit and the Halal Shariat Islamic Law Board, ensuring that food products comply with Islamic dietary laws.
Case Title: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 24 of 2024 (and connected cases)
