Today March 21, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the AAP government regarding its policy of paying salaries to imams. The court’s action follows public interest litigation challenging the government’s decision.
NEW DELHI: Today (March 21st), the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Delhi government and the Delhi Waqf Board concerning the utilization of public funds to pay salaries and honorariums to imams and muezzins. The matter followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rukmani Singh against the Delhi government’s policy.
READ ALSO: Majnu Ka Tila Demolition: Minister Condemns DDA; AAP Alleges Targeting Refugee Homes
The bench was led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, alongside Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The bench emphasized the secular nature of the case and said that if help is extended to one institution, other similar religious institutions would also come forward seeking such financial help tomorrow.
The court impleaded the Delhi government’s finance department as a party to the case and directed all respondents to submit their responses within four weeks. The case is scheduled for further hearings on July 22.
Singh’s PIL contends that the Delhi government’s actions violate the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. By favoring one religious community in disbursing financial aid, the government allegedly breaches Articles 14, 15(1), and 27, as well as Articles 266 and 282. These constitutional provisions emphasize equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Sets Deadline for AAP to Vacate Offices at Rouse Avenue To June 15
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing the petitioner, argued against the preferential treatment of one religion over others. He cited a similar ruling by the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated a comparable scheme in West Bengal.
“If this is happening with regard to one religion, then others will also come forward, saying give us subsidy. Where will it end? These are not people who are working for the state. Go to South India or other parts of the country and you will see that religious bodies and institutions play lots of roles. Even if you read about ancient India, the entire economy revolved around temples… All institutions are the same,” the bench remarked.
Kirpal highlighted that approximately Rs 10 crore annually goes towards compensating imams and muezzins, including individuals unaffiliated with the Waqf Board. He emphasized the fundamental principle of a secular state, asserting that taxpayer funds should not subsidize any religion.
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, appearing for the Waqf Board, defended the honorariums, stating they serve legitimate purposes, including social and educational activities. However, the bench raised concerns about potential requests for financial aid from other religious institutions, emphasizing the need for financial independence for the Waqf Board if it is responsible for disbursing such funds.
“In the instant case, the practice adopted by the Respondent No.1 State to pay honorarium to few individuals of a particular religious community without considering the financial condition of the similar category of individuals in the other religious community directly contravenes the secular nature of the state and violates Articles 14, 15(1) and 27, 266 and 282 of the Constitution of India,” the plea said.
The Delhi government’s Standing Counsel, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, cited the Supreme Court’s distinction between the roles of imams and priests in other religions. He argued that, unlike priests who charge for rituals, imams do not seek monetary compensation, aiming instead to strengthen social cohesion.
The court acknowledged the complexity of the matter and deemed it worthy of further consideration, issuing notice accordingly.
“Ideally, no religion should be subsidized by taxpayer funds. That is the fundamental principle of a secular state. If money is to be paid, why is it being used to subsidize one religion and not others?” Kirpal contended.
“The aim is to give the social fabric more strength,” Tripathi said.
READ ALSO: AAP Clarifies Supreme Court Allegations: Land Allotted in 2015, Not Encroached
The PIL was filed by advocates Ilesh Shukla and Chetan Sharma, which brings to the fore critical questions about the intersection of religion and state funding, prompting a legal examination of constitutional principles in India.
[CASE TITLE: Rukmani Singh v Government of NCT Delhi & Ors]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
