Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses PIL against State's scheme for free Ayodhya Ram temple pilgrimage

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a declaration that the decision taken by the State cabinet on January 10 to take 20,000 Hindus annually to Ayodhya Ram temple for pilgrimage is unconstitutional [Lakhan Subodh vs State of Chhattisgarh]..A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal noted that the scheme known as Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme was a policy decision of the State cabinet and that it was also in the manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) even before it came to power in the State."The Scheme is basically for the poor people and is open to all. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scheme prohibits or bars the people of faith other than the Hindus to participate or avail the benefit of the said scheme. Furthermore, how the Scheme would cause any harm to the secular structure of the State has also not been explained," the bench observed in its order passed on March 14.The Court further noted that the petitioner Lakhan Subodh has been a political person and was earlier associated with political parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)."This petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to gain some personal or 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," the bench said..The petitioner contended that the scheme of the State government was in violation of the basic tenets of the Constitution of India. It was argued that India being a secular State with no State religion, an elected government deciding to take a particular religious community for a pilgrimage and bearing the cost for the same, would go against the secular structure of the nation.The bench, however, dismissed the contentions stating, "The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation."From perusal of the records, it transpires that the scheme which is under challenge is a policy decision of the State government as even before coming into power, the ruling party in its manifesto had promised the domicile of Chhattisgarh for taking them to Ayodhya for pilgrimage, the bench underscored."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. In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under," the Court said while dismissing the PIL petition..Advocate Ashish Beck appeared for the petitioner.Additional Advocate General YS Thakur and DK Gwalre represented the State Authorities..[Read Judgment]