On January 20, 2025, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta presented significant concerns before the Supreme Court regarding the practice of halal certification for non-meat products. The debate stemmed from a notification by the Uttar Pradesh government banning the manufacture, sale, and storage of halal-certified products within the state, except for exports.
Halal Certification: Beyond Meat Products
Halal certification is traditionally associated with ensuring food complies with Islamic dietary laws. However, the certification now extends to a wide range of non-food items, including cement, iron bars, and water bottles. Solicitor General Mehta expressed shock over this development, stating:
“Your Lordships would be shocked, as I was, that even cement and iron bars require halal certification. How can such items be halal or non-halal?”
The Uttar Pradesh Notification
The controversy revolves around the November 18, 2023, notification issued by the Food Safety and Drug Administration of Uttar Pradesh. This order prohibits halal-certified products' manufacture, storage, sale, and distribution, aiming to eliminate what it terms a "parallel certification system."
The state government justified its move, arguing that halal certification creates confusion about food safety and contradicts the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Economic Concerns: Who Bears the Cost?
Solicitor General Mehta highlighted the financial burden imposed by halal certification. According to him, certifying agencies charge significant fees, amounting to several lakh crores, which ultimately increases the cost of products for consumers.
“Should non-believers be made to pay higher prices for halal-certified products when they don’t consume them? This raises serious questions about fairness,” Mehta remarked.
Mehta also pointed out that items like wheat flour, gram flour, and even tulsi leaves are being halal-certified, questioning the rationale behind such practices.
Religious Implications of Halal Certification
Mehta emphasized that mandatory halal certification could conflict with the religious practices of other communities. For instance, Sikhs prefer “jhatka” over halal meat. He questioned whether consumers should be compelled to purchase halal-certified products due to limited alternatives.
“Halal certification might force individuals from other religious backgrounds to consume products they traditionally avoid,” he explained.
Justice Gavai responded, acknowledging the diversity of religious practices and adding:
“Jhatka is preferred in some religions, while halal is preferred in others. This raises important questions about consumer choice.”
Arguments from the Petitioners
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, defended halal certification as a voluntary process. He stated:
“No one is forcing consumers to purchase halal-certified products. It’s a matter of personal choice.”
Ramachandran argued that the government’s notification infringes on the rights of private certifying agencies and disrupts consumer autonomy.
The Centre’s Stand on Halal Certification
In its affidavit, the Centre clarified its role in promoting trade and exports rather than regulating food safety at the state level. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry noted that the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) had developed a national halal certification scheme, “India Conformity Assessment Scheme (i-CAS)-Halal,” for export purposes.
The affidavit emphasized:
“The Centre has no role in enforcing state-level regulations or notifications. The certification process is voluntary and primarily for export purposes.”
Legal Proceedings and Upcoming Hearing
The Supreme Court granted the petitioners four weeks to file their rejoinders. The case is scheduled for a detailed hearing in March 2025. Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government has provided a 15-day window for manufacturers and retailers to comply with the notification, allowing them to repackage or recall halal-certified products.
Key Issues Raised in the Debate
- Expansion of Halal Certification: Extending halal certification to non-food items like cement and water bottles has sparked controversy.
- Economic Impact: The cost of certification disproportionately affects non-believers and raises concerns about fairness.
- Religious Diversity: Mandatory halal certification could conflict with other religious practices, such as Sikhism’s preference for jhatka.
- Consumer Choice: Advocates argue that purchasing halal-certified products remains voluntary, while critics question its economic and cultural implications.
Conclusion
The ongoing Supreme Court debate reflects broader tensions between religious practices, consumer rights, and regulatory policies. The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for halal certification policies across India.
