In a case before the Supreme Court of India, comprising the bench of justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, challenging the interim order passed by the Gujrat High Court, the Supreme Court asked the question whether the tax payers’ money could be used to rebuild the places of worship that were damaged due to the law and order problem during the 2002 riots.
The instant case was filed by the Islamic Relief Centre, Gujrat (IRCG) at the Gujrat High Court, wherein the petitioners claimed for compensation for the damage caused to the religious structures and prayed for the state government to rebuild the religious structures that were damaged during the riots. The Gujrat High Court had passed an interim order wherein the calculation and estimation of the damage to the religious structures was to be done by the “Special Officers” who are actually District Court Judges.
The State of Gujrat being represented by Additional Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, stated before the Supreme Court that the High Court had no power to direct the state government to rebuild the religious structures that were damaged due to the law and order problem. Tushar Mehta even told the court that under the constitution there was a right to freedom to profess, propagate, preach a religion but the religious places were not covered under this fundamental right. He also said that under article 27 of the constitution of India, the state is not allowed to spend the tax payers’ money on the religious places.
According Article 27 of the constitution,
“27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.– No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”
Thus, it was argued that it is unconstitutional for the High Court to pass such an order for the repairing/damages of the religious places as it has been prohibited by virtue of article 27 of the constitution.
As it has been reported on FirstPost, quoting the bench, “What is troubling us is whether a state because of law and order problem can be commanded to fund (the repair and restoration) of a temple, mosque, church gurudwara or other kinds of places of worship under Article 21.”
The bench pondered on under which provision of the law has the District Judge been appointed as a Special Judge to quantify to amount of damage. Then the bench even observed that the religious places on the footpaths and on the side of the road would also ask for compensation to which senior advocate Yusuf H Muchhala appearing for IRCG stated that such religious institutions would be held as unauthorized.
The Supreme Court had on 27 August 2013 ordered for a status quo of the High Court order dated 8 February 2012 so as to decide on the legal issue arising.
This author feels that while it is not disputed that there has been huge loss to the religious property/places during the 2002 riots, the High Court’s interim order appears to be unconstitutional as it goes against Article 27 of the Constitution, according to which the state exchequers’ money cannot be spent on the maintenance of the religious institutions.
