Author: Legal Correspondent
Publication: The Hindu
Date: September 19, 2006
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/19/stories/2006091904781100.htm
Introduction: Either grant subsidy to all religions or don't give it at all: Bench
* Doesn't subsidy to one religion violate the Constitution?
* Manasarovar yatra spending not a subsidy
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court order restraining the Centre from granting financial subsidy to Haj pilgrims every year.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice C.K. Thakker, while clearing the subsidy for this year as all arrangements had been made, asked Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati "whether granting subsidy for one pilgrimage does not violate the secular character of our Constitution that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of religion. Either grant such subsidy to all religions or don't give it at all."
Mr. Vahanvati, however, said though the matter required examination, the Haj process had started in May on a massive scale and hence should not be disturbed.
To a question what would happen if there was no subsidy, Mr. Vahanvati said most of the pilgrims would not undertake the pilgrimage. The Government had signed an agreement with Saudi authorities for sending 1,47,000 pilgrims for Haj 2006-II, of whom 1,00,000 would be sent through the Haj Committee of India. The implementation of the High Court judgment would derail the arrangements and the quota for sending 1.47 lakh pilgrims would be in jeopardy.
It would have serious international ramifications for securing quota for Indians in future Haj programmes.
The Bench asked Mr. Vahanvati to "tell us whether any such subsidy is given to any other yatra. You can make arrangements like running special trains for the Kumbh Mela, provision for law and order, hygiene and other facilities, but can you grant financial subsidy?"
Mr. Vahanvati said the Government was providing facilities for the Kailash Manasarovar yatra and incurring an expense of Rs. 3,200 on each pilgrim.
But the Bench was quick to point out that the money was being paid was towards provision of facilities and it was not a subsidy.
But after he pointed out that the High Court order would result in serious consequences, the Bench stayed it.
The Bench issued notice to Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner and others, and asked the High Court to dispose of the main petition on the validity of the subsidy as expeditiously as possible, but before Haj 2007.
On the petition from B.N. Shukla, the High Court had restrained the Union Government from releasing any fund or subsidy for this year's Haj.