S.P. ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition as "pro bono publico" challenging grant of subsidy by Central Government allegedly to the tune of Rs. 40 crores to the Muslim pilgrims for Haj 1993. The action of the Central Govt. was violative of Articles 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 36(2) and 282 of the Constitution and it infringed Articles 14 and 27 as the Govt. had not issued any notification inviting offers from people belonging to various religions for the purpose and had also not fixed any norms for the grant, therefore, the action of the Govt. is arbitrary and discriminatory. Article 27 was also contravened as public funds were utilized for promotion of religion and to exploit Muslim Vote Bank. It is accordingly prayed that respondent No.1 and 2 be restrained from granting any more subsidy to Haj pilgrims. Respondents filed reply in oppugnation and averred that the petition is not maintainable as no public interest was involved in it. It is pointed out that the petitioner was 'professional public litigant' and had filed about 100 petitions under PIL. The Supreme Court has also passed remarks against him in 1996 (VI) SCC 734, S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. Devegonda and ors. It was admitted that the Govt. was incurring expenditure on Haj pilgrimage but it was not discriminatory in any manner as no other section of society had made complaint of any unequal treatment in this regard. It is stated that the Govt. was otherwise also incurring expenditure on beneficial schemes for particular groups and provides travel facilities for Sikh and Hindu -Jathas going to Pakistan on pilgrimage. It was also making arrangements for the Hindu Melas like 'Kumbha' and other religious festivals. So there was nothing wrong if it spent some money to portray and promot its good image in International community. It was also averred that the Union of India had financed arrangement of Haj 1993 after it withdrew M.V. Nicobar Vessel from Andaman and Nicobar Islands and deputed it for Haj sailing and made provision for Air service for islanders at Bunk class sea fare instead. Later on Haj sailings were discontinued and lesser Air fare was fixed than the chartered fare per passenger. The difference was reimbursed to Indian Air Lines and Air India and no subsidy was paid directly to any Haj pilgrims. It is stated that Haj was an unique event in which over 2 million Muslims from different countries and all parts of the world congregated at the same time in a spirit of equality and brotherhood. They wear some prescribed special attire and perform the same rituals. No other religion has such unique tradition. The object of expenditure in this regard is to project unique cultural synthesis of Indian society abroad, which had diplomatic dimensions and important political purpose.

(2.) THE argument of the petitioner that Govt. of India is violating Article 14 and 27 of the Constitution by incurring expenditure for making arrangements for Haj pilgrims, is without substance. The petitioner has not alleged that some other sections of the society had asked for similar treatment which was denied, therefore, the question of arbitrariness or discrimination and violation of Article 14 did not arise.

(3.) THIS article forbids forcible levy and collection of any tax, proceeds whereof are spent for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious activities. In this case there is no material on record to show that people were forced to pay any tax to finance the backup arrangements for Haj pilgrims or maintenance or promotion of Islam.