Supreme Court says Haj subsidy not discriminatory

• The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, which provides for grant of a government subsidy for pilgrimage every year.
• A Bench of judges rejected the contention by Prafull Goradia, former BJP Rajya Sabha member, who said such a grant violated Articles 14 and 15 and in particular Article 27 (freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion).
• The petitioner said he was a Hindu but he had to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds went for the Haj pilgrimage, which was done only by Muslims. For the Haj, "the Indian government grants a subsidy in air fare," which it could not do. An estimated Rs. 280 crore annually incurred by the government for the pilgrimage was not only unconstitutional but also a severe drain on the taxpayers' money.

• Rejecting this argument, the Bench said India was a country of great diversity and "if we wish to keep our country united, we need to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution, which is secular in character and which caters for the tremendous diversity in our country."
• The Bench said: "When India became independent in 1947 there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people living in the subcontinent are descendants of immigrants), the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc."

Article 27

On the petitioner's contention that Article 27 was violated, the court said: "If only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion would Article 27 be violated."

The Bench pointed out that the State government incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and the Centre, for facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage to Mansarover, etc.

Similarly some State governments provided facilities to Hindus and Sikhs to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan.