New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that courts couldn’t direct a state government to pay compensation for damage caused to places of worship like temples, mosques and churches during riots due to failure of law and order.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, however, said the protection of property and places of worship is an essential part of secularism. The freedom of individual in this regard has to be respected and there has to be tolerance for each other. This principle has been accepted in the constitutional scheme keeping in view the concrete sustenance of national unity and integrity.
The bench allowed an appeal filed by the state of Gujarat against the Gujarat high court order passed on a writ petition filed by Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (IRCG) to pay compensation for the damage and destruction caused to religious places during the 2002 communal riots.
The bench agreed with the stand of the Gujarat government that use of taxpayers’ money for repair/restructuring/ construction of religious place in a secular country like India would offend the spirit of Article 27 of the Constitution.
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra rejected the plea that “right to worship” is part of “right to life and liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution warranting payment of compensation when there is a breach of this right.
The bench, however observed that as far as State is concerned, it is obliged under the Constitution to treat persons belonging to all faiths and religions with equality. The individual has his freedom to practice the religion as he desires and it is totally immaterial from the perspective of the state.
The Bench accepted the stand of Gujarat government that religious places which are damaged in 2002 riots would be given an ex-gratia fixed payment.
The Bench said the claimants who fulfill the conditions of the scheme shall approach the authorities within eight weeks and the said authorities shall determine the same within three months from the receipt of the claims. If any party is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit, he can take appropriate steps in accordance with law, the Bench added.
