Delhi High Court questions AAP government policy to pay honorarium to Imams

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to Delhi government and Delhi Waqf Board on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Delhi government’s policy of utilising government funds to pay salaries/ honorarium to Imams and Muezzins [Rukmani Singh v Government of NCT Delhi & Ors]..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that if help is extended to one institution, other similar religious institutions would also come forward seeking such financial help tomorrow. “If this is happening with regard to one religion, then others will also come forward saying give us subsidy. Where will it end? These are not people who are working for the State… Go to South India or other parts of the country and you will see that religious bodies and institutions play lots of roles… Even if you read about ancient India, the entire economy revolved around temples… All institutions are the same,” the bench remarked.The Court impleaded Delhi government’s finance department as a party to the case and ordered all the respondents to file their response in four weeks.The case will be heard next on July 22..The PIL by Rukmani Singh, a lawyer said that the Constitution of India provides that the State shall be secular and therefore, by paying salaries/honorariums to people of one religion, the Delhi government’s policy to pay financial help to people of one religion goes against the Constitution. "In the instant case, the practice adopted by the Respondent No.1 State to pay honorarium to few individuals of a particular religious community without considering the financial condition of the similar category of individuals in the other religious community directly contravenes the secular nature of the state and violates Articles 14, 15(1) and 27, 266 and 282 of the Constitution of India,” the plea said.It added that Article 282 of the Constitution makes it clear that the spending power of the Union of India or the State government is not coterminous with the legislative power and the money must be spent on a public purpose..Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal appeared for the petitioner and argued that the government policy goes against Articles 14, 15, 266 and 282 of the Constitution of India as people of one particular religion were being given preference and paid money.“Ideally, no religion should be subsidized by taxpayer funds. That is the fundamental principle of a secular State. If money is to be paid, why is it being used to subsidize one religion and not others,” Kirpal contended.He also referred to an order of the Calcutta High Court where a similar scheme of the West Bengal government was struck down.Kirpal stressed that around ₹10 crore was being paid annually to the Imams and Muezzins and the money was going not only to the people associated with the waqf board but also to people who are not associated with it..Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appeared for the Waqf Board and argued that the honorarium to the Imams and Muezzins is not being paid by the government but by Waqf Board.Ghose said that the Waqf Board is a statutory body and the grants being provided to the Imams and Muezzins is properly sanctioned and is for a legitimate purpose.“These Imams also perform cultural and social activities. Inside the mosques, the Imam also supervises education for the disadvantaged groups. The money is going for the benefit of socially backward people,” Ghose said..Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Manmohan, however, said that even other religions and religious institutions perform similar functions and tomorrow, they will also seek such financial help.It further said that if the Waqf Board is paying the money, then the Board must be financially independent..Delhi government’s Standing Counsel, Santosh Kumar Tripathi argued that the Supreme Court in its judgement has held that the position of Imams are different from the priests in other religions and unlike other religions where money is charged for certain rituals, the Imams do not charge any money.“The aim is to give the social fabric more strength,” Tripathi said.The Court considered the arguments and observed that the matter requires consideration.It, therefore, issued notice in the matter..The plea was filed through advocates Ilesh Shukla and Chetan Sharma.