The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a PIL challenging the State’s decision to take 20,000 Hindus annually to the Ayodhya Ram temple, citing its inclusion in the BJP’s manifesto and its accessibility to all.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chhattisgarh: Recently, The Chhattisgarh High Court made headlines by rejecting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of a state-sponsored pilgrimage scheme. This scheme, officially termed the Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme, aimed to facilitate annual pilgrimages for 20,000 Hindus to the revered Ayodhya Ram Temple.
The decision handed down by the division bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal.
The scheme’s inclusive nature was emphasized by the court’s decision, stating:
“The initiative primarily targets the economically disadvantaged and is accessible to everyone. The petitioner has not shown any evidence indicating that individuals of faiths other than Hinduism are prohibited from participating or benefiting from the scheme. Moreover, there has been no explanation provided on how the scheme could potentially undermine the secular foundation of the State.”
This perception features the court’s position on the plan’s availability and its effect on the common structure of the state.
The origins of the PIL were scrutinized, with the court noting the political background of the petitioner, Lakhan Subodh, who had affiliations with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).
The bench remarked:
“This petition seems to be primarily aimed at achieving personal or political objectives, despite the petitioner’s assertion of being unaffiliated with any political party at present. Furthermore, it is established that the State’s policy decisions are generally not subject to interference.”
The petitioner’s arguments centered around the alleged violation of the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution by the state government’s scheme. However, the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner’s intent and the legitimacy of the PIL.
“The courts are duty-bound to conduct a prima facie assessment of the petitioner’s standing prior to adjudicating upon a PIL. Moreover, it is firmly entrenched in jurisprudence that before granting leave to a PIL, the courts must ensure that it is directed towards redressing bona fide public harm or injury. Additionally, the court is obligated to ascertain the absence of any ulterior motives such as personal gain, private agenda, or oblique intention behind the initiation of the public interest litigation.”
-the bench stated, reinforcing the criteria for accepting PILs.
ALSO READ: Historic Ayodhya Verdict Judges Honored with Invitations to Ram Mandir Consecration Ceremony
The scheme’s origins, the court observed that it was both a fulfillment of a pre-election promise by the ruling party and a non-discriminatory decision in terms of religion.
“The petitioner has not demonstrated how the State Government’s scheme is inconsistent with the Constitution of India, arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory, as it is accessible to all Chhattisgarh domiciles without distinction of any particular religion. In this instance, we find insufficient grounds to deem this a bona fide public interest petition warranting the invocation of jurisdiction under.”
-the judgment read, affirming the scheme’s constitutionality and its alignment with secular values.
Advocate Ashish Beck for the petitioner.
Additional Advocate General YS Thakur alongside DK Gwalre for the State Authorities.
Case Title:
Lakhan Subodh vs State of Chhattisgarh
Read the Title
