By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,July 22: In an interim order with far-reaching consequences, the AP High Court on Wednesday directed the state government not to extend financial assistance for pilgrimages undertaken by members belonging to “all religions” to visit holy places.
Dealing with two separate petitions, the court set aside the state government order granting aid to pilgrims bound for Jerusalem. Three batches of pilgrims have availed of the subsidy. The government has also prepared an order to provide assistance to pilgrims bound for Manasarovar and is drawing up guidelines.
The state government has decided to approach the Supreme Court against the interim order delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan. The order could have wide ranging repercussions across the country. While the court did not specifically mention the Haj subsidy, it did ask the government to stop financial assistance to pilgrims of “all religions.”
This was taken to include the Haj pilgrimage, which the government assists in the form of a Rs 12,000 subsidy on air fare to each pilgrim. The court was dealing with separate petitions opposing subsidy for pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and to Hindu holy sites, and it decided to expand the scope of the petitions to “all religions.”
Asked about the impact of the judgment on the Haj subsidy, the AP State Haj Committee executive officer, Mr M.A. Quddus, said: “There is a case pending in the SC on subsidy for Haj pilgrims. The apex court had asked the government to continue the existing policy until further orders.” The Catholica Samakya president, Mr G. Bal Reddy, said, “We are very disappointed. The budgetary allocation for the scheme is only Rs 2 crore per year which is peanuts when compared to the Rs 1 lakh crore budget of the state.”
The scheme should not be viewed separately it is part of the overall welfare of minorities, Mr Bal Reddy said. “It is a subsidy provided by the government that too to families with lower income,” he said. Earlier, the state government strongly opposed the court taking up the petitions saying it constituted interference in the administration.
Mr A. Satyaprasad, additional-advocate-general, contended that extending financial help to pilgrims was a policy decision, where the courts have no say. The judges said, “We will not interfere if it is in the larger public interest, but if the government is giving concession to individuals in the name of religion it (the court) will definitely look into the issue.” The judges said they would not allow taxpayer money to be spent on pilgrimages.
The additional advocate-general argued that though the government has no religion, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from providing help to pilgrims. “The concept of secularism does not mean prohibiting the state from taking welfare measures for pilgrims of various religions,” he said. “We should not forget that taxpayers can only elect governments and allow them to function and spend the money.”
He said that allocating a budget for any scheme was the prerogative of the legislature; the Constitution prohibited interference by courts in the matter of budgetary allocations under Article 212. The court said: “We are not against funding for construction of temples, mosques, or churches or any other shrine by the government, but it cannot allow the government to spend taxpayers’ money for individual purpose.”
The court said Article 152 of the Constitution empowers the courts to review policy decisions. The court said it intended to expand the scope of the writ petitions beyond the prayer of the petitioners by including all pilgrimages undertaken by persons of all religions. Mr Satish Agarwal, one of the petitioners, asked the court to strike down the government order which enables financial aid to the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Mr Gandra Mohana Rao, the other petitioner, sought a direction to provide financial assistance to Hindu pilgrims.
Mr Satyaprasad told the court that Haj pilgrimage was governed by the Centre under the Haj Committee Act 2002. He said that the court cannot pass any interim order without hearing the Centre and urged the court to issue notices to the Centre. The court said that it would consider his submission. Mr Challa Kodandaram, who appeared on behalf of Mr Mohan Rao contended that the government cannot extend financial aid to pilgrim places abroad through an executive order. He said that permitting such pilgrimage was under the purview of the Centre.
Agreeing with the contention of the petitioners the court passed interim order.
No comments:
Post a Comment