Friday, January 28, 2011

SC super stars say Haj subsidy not discriminatory

Reading the Supreme Court's decisions makes me wonder which is the bigger circus the Parliament or the Supreme Court. The petitioner Prafull Goradia claimed,

a grant (Hajj subsidy) violated Articles 14 and 15 and in particular Article 27 (freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion).

In response the learned judges of the Supreme Court went all JNU style history book in stating
India was a country of great diversity and “if we wish to keep our country united, we need to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution, which is secular in character and which caters for the tremendous diversity in our country.”

WTF! How does this really correspond to the question posed?
The SC then claimed:
If only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion would Article 27 be violated.

What defines "small part of any tax" and secondly who determines where that amount goes to?
There is a clear lack of accountability that is being applauded by the "super stars", I mean Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra here.

5 comments:

cbcnn_Pilid said...

A very bad judgment - my analysis is here. The shocking aspect is the extremely casual style in which the judgment has been crafted. The SC seems to be more interested in politics and political questions today than in constitutional issues - witness the mention about Pandit Nehru retaining his cool, etc.

Anonymous said...

The judges can contribute a "small part" of their personal wealth to subsidie secular activities like Haj pilgrimage. Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra can set the ball rolling by donating their next month's salary for this secular, noble cause.

CHAKRAM said...

Be careful, you termed the judges "monkeys". that would amount to Contempt of court(i donno the exact word)

Just another guy said...

WTF!

Anonymous said...

No surprises here- consider the following:
Day 1- SC releases judgement
Day 2- Group of usual suspects says SC must expunge parts of judgement
Day 3- SC without missing a beat releases revised version
Day 4- Said group thanks SC

So there you have it: naked interference followed by abject surrender by the highest court in the land- and no outrage from hyperventilating intellectuals or even expressions of disbelief from the legal community.
To borrow a phrase from a well-known boxing promoter- only in India.