SC to Govt; Give subsidy to all or none

New Delhi, Sep 18 (UNI) The Supreme Court today told the Centre," Give subsidy to all religions or to none." The court made the observation while hearing the appeal filed by the Centre against Allahabad high court judgment directing the government not provide any subsidy to haj pilgrims.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justices A R Lakshmanan and C K Thakker also asked the government, " Tell us whether you give subsidy in travelling by bus, train or ship or any other mode of transport to the pilgrims of any other religion." Responding to the contention of Solicitor General G E Vahanvati that the petition was politically motivated as the petitioner B N Shukla was the spokesman of Shiv Sena in Uttar Pradesh, the court said,"It does not matter whether petitioner is a politician or not , We will decide the petition on the basis whether it is bonafide or malafide." The court however stayed the High Court order to the extent that Centre could provide subsidy to the Haj pilgrims only this year.

The apex court also requested the High Court to dispose off the writ petition as expeditiously as possible so that law on the point may be crystal clear.

The court also made it clear that today's order would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the policy of the government to provide subsidy running into few hundred crores every year to Haj pilgrims as it is violative of Article 14 of the constitution because no such facility is provided to the pilgrims of any other religion in the country.

It is worth mentioning here that in all government of Saudi Arabia has allocated 147,000 Haj pilgrims to India out of which 100,000 pilgrims are to given subsidy on travel and staying facilities in Mecca Madina during the pilgrimages while remaining 47,000 have to fend for themselves.

This year Haj pilgrimage is to start in November.

Vahanvati's contention that the government runs special trains for Sikh jathas to Nankana Sahib and Hindu pilgrims to Kailash Mansarover, failed to impress the court and judges responded by saying," Concession is different from subsidy as subsidy was a policy matter and policy of the government should be same for all religions." The argument of the state that withdrawal of subsidy at this stage when all arrangements have been made would result in loss of face for the country in the comity of nations, was however taken note of by the court which allowed the government to go ahead with the subsidy only for the current year.

UNI AKS/SC RP VC1826