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,
In response the learned judges of the Supreme Court went all JNU style history book in stating
WTF! How does this really correspond to the question posed?
The SC then claimed:
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.
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.
Posts
