Government Funded Visit To Religious Sites Of Only One Religion Questioned By Gujarat High Court

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

Gujarat High Court asked the state government of Gujarat to explain why tax payer’s money was being used to organize visits to shrines of only one religion under Pavitra Yatradham Board.

Facts of the Case

A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Mr. Mujahid Nafees a resident of Juhapur under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution challenging the setting up of Pavitra Yatradham Board. Public Interest Litigation mentioned that in 1995 a resolution was passed by Gujarat Government which permitted the state government to form “Pavitra Yatradham Vikas Board”. The main aim of this Board was to provide amenities like lodging and boarding to pilgrims. Chief Minister of the state acted as Board’s Chairman and other ministries were also added in the due course of time. In 1997 after establishing the Board, a list of six religious sites was finalized. These were Ambaji, Dakor, Girnar, Palithana, Somnath and Dwarka for promotion as Pavitra Yatradham. A total of 24 Lakh Rupees were earmarked for their development. The list grew with the passage of time and after more than two decades later list covers 358 places. However, an interesting thing to note in the list was that all the places in the list belonged to only one religion. None of the religious shrines belonging to other religion such as Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Christian, Buddhism, Zoroastrian or other religions made it in the list.

Main grounds on the basis of which Petitioner challenged the constitution of Pavitra Yatradham Board were saying that constitution of the board in itself is “ex facie in contravention of the provisions of Constitution”. Another ground mentioned in PIL was that “action of the government selecting religious sites of only one religion was arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside”.

Moreover, the PIL also stated that a secular state government is expected not to promote and maintain religious sites of a particular community and the taxes and proceeds collected by it from the citizens should not be spent over the promotion and maintenance of religious sites of a particular religion.”

The decision of the Court

Finding Merits in the grounds raised by the Petitioner, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice V M Pancholi asked the government pleader to look into the matter and get instructions from the government. Thereafter, the case was adjourned till 12th December 2018.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -