Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
Lakhan Subodh, S/o. Shri Adhar Subodh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Tourism, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) & Ors. - Respondents
WPPIL No. 17 of 2024
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Ultra Vires - Cabinet Meeting Decision - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 25-30 - The court discussed the impugned Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 along with the 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme, which provides for free Pilgrimage to Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, and the expenditure on which is to be borne by the State exchequer. The petitioner challenged the decision on the ground that it violates the tenet of secularism, an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and democracy. The court analyzed the constitutional provisions related to secularism and their interpretation, emphasizing that the State cannot employ the organs of government for religious purposes to advance a particular religion. It also highlighted the violation of Articles 14 and 15, which prohibit discrimination based on religion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 and the 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme, alleging that they violate the tenet of secularism and discriminate against other religions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Scheme is a policy decision of the State Government, open to all the domicile of Chhattisgarh, and not limited or restricted to a particular religion. It dismissed the PIL, stating that it was not a genuine petition filed in public interest.
Issues: The issues revolved around the violation of secular principles and discrimination based on religion in the impugned Cabinet decision and Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the State cannot employ the organs of government for religious purposes to advance a particular religion, and a policy decision of the State can normally not be interfered with unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power.
Final Decision: The PIL was dismissed, and the security deposit made by the petitioner was forfeited.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(ii) Declare the impugned Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 with regard to formulation and implementation of 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme as Ultra Vires and unconstitutional.
(iii) Pass appropriate order/direction in nature of writ of certiorari to the respondents quashing and setting-aside the relevant part of impugned Cabinet meeting dated 10.01.2024 which approved and passed 'Shree Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme".
(iv) Declare the impugned 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme as Ultra Vires and unconstitutional.
(v) Pass appropriate order/direction in nature of writ of certiorari to the respondents quashing and setting aside the 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme.
(vi) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Challenge in this petition is to the Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme (for short, the Scheme) which provides for free Pilgrimage to Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the expenditure on which is to be borne by State exchequer. The impugned Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the Scheme have been challenged on the ground that they violate the tenet of secularism which is an integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution and democracy.
3. According to Mr. Ashish Beck, learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the credentials of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner being a public-spirited person and a social activist, participates in social and community related issues especially on human rights, democratic rights as provided by the Constitution and other laws of the land. The petitioner is member of People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) which is an all-India Human Rights organization working in the field of human rights and civil liberties. The petitioner is also a member and convener of Civil Society Organization named 'Guru Ghasidas Sewadar Sangh (GSS) which works for the rights of marginalized section of society like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes and migrant and bonded labourers. Before his association with the above-mentioned non-government organisations and Human and Civil rights groups, the petitioner was associated with Political Parties like CPI, CPI(M) and Bahujan Samaj. Party. However, since the year 1999, the petitioner is not a member of any political party. The petitioner had earlier filed as many as three PILs relating to various social issues.
4. According to Mr. Beck, on 03.11.2023, the Bharatiya Janta Party (for short, the BJP), Chhattisgarh State Unit released its manifesto terming the promises made in the manifesto as "Modi ki Guarantee" for the State Assembly elections, promising free Ayodhya Pilgrimage to the people of Chhattisgarh if it comes to power and forms government in the State of Chhattisgarh. The press covered the news of promise of free Ayodhya pilgrimage in the manifesto released by BJP. In the said Assembly elections, the BJP won and formed Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government has kept its promise of free Ayodhya pilgrimage as made in the election manifesto during the elections and reiterated its promise of Ayodhya Pilgrimage. On 10.01.2024, the State Cabinet meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister. The decision of the meeting states that it has been decided by the Cabinet to fulfill the guarantee promised to the people of Chhattisgarh by the Hon’ble Prime Minister and so it has been decided to start the Scheme. The Cabinet decision mentioned that Shri Ramlala i.e. Lord Ram's Pran Pratishtha is happening in Ayodhya on 22nd January. It was announced by the Chhattisgarh Government that the people of the State will be taken to Ayodhya for darshan of Shri Ramlala, accordingly the 'Shri Raml
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a policy decision of the State can normally not be interfered with unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary o....
The state may exercise its power under Article 15(3) to create special provisions in favor of women and transgender persons, and such policy decisions aimed at promoting socio-economic empowerment ar....
Once the Court has intrinsic material to accept that the faith or the belief is genuine and not a pretence, it must defer to the belief of the worshipper This, we must do well to recognise, applies a....
The Sikh Gurdawaras and Religious Endowment Act, 1973 does not violate constitutional rights as the legislature possesses the authority to regulate religious property management.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and circumspection in pursuing Public Interest Litigations, and the court's authority to dismiss petitions as a patent abuse o....
Exclusion of other castes from the position of Melsanthi based on heritage does not violate constitutional rights, as it respects longstanding religious practices and customs integral to the temple's....
Caste-based restrictions in the appointment of priests violate constitutional rights to equality and must align with qualifications, not caste.
The Madarsa Act, 2004 violates the secular principles of the Constitution and the right to quality education, rendering it unconstitutional.
The Governor does not act in discretion for framing rules under the Fifth Schedule; such rules are valid and within constitutional compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
