The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind Halal Trust has strongly contested the Centre’s submission before the Supreme Court with regard to the halal certification, which it said was completely incorrect, vexatious, and scandalous, arguing that the certification process is a fundamental consumer right that extends beyond non-vegetarian food and export purposes.
The rejoinder affidavit was filed in response to the Centre’s counter affidavit in the case concerning the ban on halal-certified products in Uttar Pradesh, with the Trust asserting that the government’s submissions were misleading and damaging to the legitimacy of halal certification.
The Trust maintained that halal certification is not a coercive process but rather a consumer-driven initiative that companies voluntarily seek based on market demand, with businesses opting for such certification to cater to specific consumer preferences.
It pointed out that the Centre had selectively targeted halal certification while similar certifications, such as kosher, remained unaffected and continued to be prevalent in different parts of the country, including Uttar Pradesh. It also emphasised that halal certification is crucial for international trade, as many manufacturing companies require such accreditation to meet the standards set by importing countries.
Responding to the Solicitor General’s assertions that halal certification had extended to non-food products such as cement, iron bars, and bottled water, the Trust clarified that it had not issued halal certification for construction materials.
However, it acknowledged that certain steel and cement manufacturers sought halal certification for materials used in food packaging, such as tin plates and food cans, due to export requirements imposed by foreign buyers. The Trust reiterated that such certification was requested by exporting companies and was not imposed by the petitioners.
The affidavit further argued that the Centre’s claims had been widely publicised to malign and discredit the halal certification process, with media debates amplifying a narrative that was detrimental to the concept of halal itself.
The Trust contended that the Solicitor General’s statements had been made without any factual basis and urged the Supreme Court to direct the government to disclose which officials had authorised such claims, given their potential to prejudice a significant section of Indian society.
Stating that halal certification is deeply rooted in religious beliefs and practices, the Trust argued that any attempt to curtail it would amount to a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee religious freedom.
It asserted that neither the central nor state governments had the authority to dictate individual choices regarding consumption, as the right to choose halal-certified products was a matter of personal liberty and religious expression.
The Trust dismissed the argument that halal certification contributed to price inflation, asserting that the certification process was a business decision made by companies based on consumer demand. It argued that such decisions were influenced by market dynamics rather than any coercion from certifying agencies, as companies voluntarily sought halal certification to cater to specific segments of consumers.
Emphasising that the controversy surrounding halal certification was politically motivated, the Trust maintained that the Centre’s stance was inconsistent with its own official records and sworn statements.