The Uttar Pradesh government presented its concerns over the halal certification process in the Supreme Court, exposing the widespread application of halal labelling on non-meat products. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state, emphasised that items like cement, iron rods, and water bottles were also being labelled as ‘halal certified,’ requiring them to adhere to Islamic laws.
The court was hearing petitions challenging Uttar Pradesh’s ban on halal-certified products. Mehta informed the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih that the state was alarmed to find halal certification extended to products far beyond meat, including construction materials and packaged goods. “So far as halal meat is concerned, nobody can have any objection. However, cement, iron bars, and even water bottles are being labelled halal-certified. How can besan (chickpea flour) be halal or non-halal?” he questioned.
Mehta argued that the halal certification system was financially burdensome for consumers and businesses. He alleged that certification agencies were profiting substantially by enforcing unnecessary certifications on a wide array of products.
Furthermore, Mehta highlighted the religious aspect of the controversy, noting that while Islamic tradition requires meat to be halal, other religions, such as Sikhism, mandate different practices like jhatka.
“Suppose I am Sikh, and for me, halal meat is prohibited. Yet, halal certification forces such individuals to consume only halal products. This has broader implications,” he added.
Uttar Pradesh | Food Commissioner’s Office issues order, “In the interest of public health, production, storing, distribution and sale of halal certified edible items banned in Uttar Pradesh with immediate effect.” pic.twitter.com/G9GXLPj83n
— ANI UP/Uttarakhand (@ANINewsUP) November 18, 2023
In response, Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad, representing the petitioners, defended the halal certification process, stating it was voluntary and not mandatory. He dismissed claims of coercion, arguing that no customer is compelled to buy halal-certified products. Shamshad also contended that halal’s scope is detailed in the Centre’s policies and is not confined to non-vegetarian food.
The controversy stems from a November 2023 notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration, banning the production, storage, and sale of halal-certified food items. The government cited public health concerns and argued that halal certification operated as a parallel system to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which already regulates food quality.
The notification specifically targeted items such as dairy products, sugar, bakery goods, and edible oils, claiming that halal certification violated provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the government, the existence of a separate halal certification system undermines the regulatory framework established by FSSAI.
Following the ban, Uttar Pradesh police registered FIRs against several companies accused of issuing fraudulent halal certifications. These included Halal India Private Limited, Jamiat Ulema Hind Halal Trust, and Halal Council of India. The charges ranged from forgery and fraud to inciting communal disharmony. Products implicated included bathing soaps, spices, snacks, and garments, allegedly labelled with fake halal certifications.
Two organisations—Halal India Private Limited and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Halal Trust—filed petitions challenging the ban. They argued that the notification was arbitrary and violated the principle of reasonable classification. The petitioners claimed that halal certification served a specific consumer base and did not impose any restrictions on others.
The Supreme Court granted interim relief to the petitioners, protecting them from coercive action. The bench also criticised the state government for summoning trust officials without clear reasons, despite their cooperation in the investigation.
The Uttar Pradesh government has called for greater scrutiny of the ‘halal economy,’ which it argues extends far beyond meat products. Critics of halal certification claim that it creates a monopolistic market, inflate prices, and limits employment opportunities to specific religious groups.
“Businesses are increasingly serving only halal meat to cut costs, leaving consumers with no choice. This practice marginalises communities who follow other dietary customs and impacts traditional employment sectors,” Mehta asserted. He added that halal certification on non-meat items further entrenches this system, fostering economic disparities and undermining existing regulatory mechanisms.
