Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Declare 'Ramlala Darshan Scheme' Of Govt To Be Unconstitutional

The Chhattisgarh High Court has binned a plea seeking to declare 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme' of the Chhattisgarh Government as unconstitutional and ultra vires being in violation of secular fabric of the Constitution.

While terming the scheme to be a 'policy decision' of the Government, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held –

“The petitioner himself had been a political person associated earlier with the CPI, CPI(M) and BSP and this petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to gain some personal/political mileage, though the petitioner claims that at present he is not associated with any political party. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a policy decision of the State can normally be not interfered with.”

Case Background

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in November 2023, had released its manifesto ahead of the State Legislative Assembly elections whereby it had, inter alia, promised free Ayodhya pilgrimage to the residents of Chhattisgarh.

Subsequent to its victory in the election, the Government held a cabinet meeting on 10.01.2024 wherein it decided to formulate and implement 'Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme' whereby it proposed to provide free journey and darshan of Ramlala in Ayodhya to Chhattisgarh residents

Lakhan Subodh, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the nature of Public Interest litigation (PIL) challenging the aforesaid decision taken by the Cabinet on the ground that the same is in violation of the secular fabric of the Constitution.

Contentions

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the funds of a secular State cannot be used to promote or benefit any particular religious community. It was further contended that the act of the State Government violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

It was also stressed that secularism mandates that the State cannot employ the organs of government for religious purposes to advance particular religion. Use of government programmes to promote or benefit members of particular religion under the guise of tourism is blatantly against the secular character of polity.

To substantiate this argument, reliance was placed upon judgments of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and Federation of Railway Officers Association & Others v. Union of India.

Court's Observations

The Court, at the outset, examined the locus standi of the petitioner to file the PIL challenging the cabinet decision. It held that the Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private or oblique motive behind filing the PIL as the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.

The Court underlined that the petitioner is a member of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the convener of a civil society organization named 'Guru Ghasidas Sewadar Sangh'. He is also a former member of Communist Party of India (CPI), CPI (Marxist) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Thus, it was held that he filing the petition for political mileage could not be ruled out.

So far as the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmindra Thirtha (supra), the Court was of the considered opinion that the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts.

Also, the Court said that the reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satish Agrawal v. State of Andhra Pradesh is misplaced as GOMs No. 29, dated 21.07.2008 was challenged which was related to the scheme for assistance to Christian pilgrimage by deploying the budgeted amount of Rs. 2 Crores. The Court highlighted that the scheme was solely for the people of Christian faith and not open to the general public of all faiths.

Having regard for the aforesaid, the Court concluded that:

“The petitioner has failed to point out as to how the Scheme of the State Government is inconsistent with the Constitution of India or is arbitrary or irrational or discriminatory as the same is open to all the domicile of Chhattisgarh and not for any particular religion. Further, the Scheme in question is a policy decision of the State which cannot be interfered with as the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the action of the State is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power.”

Case Title: Lakhan Subodh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 5

Case No: WPPIL No. 17 of 2024

Date of Judgment: March 14, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Beck, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General; Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order