New Delhi, India - The UPA government's 'secular' credentials came in for embarrassing scrutiny on Monday with Supreme Court interrogating the Centre on whether secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution, allowed it to grant largesse for the annual Haj pilgrimage.
Though a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices A R Lakshamanan and C K Thakker asked the uncomfortable question, which could provide fodder to opposition BJP, it granted immediate relief to the Centre by staying the Allahabad High Court's interim order restraining the government from subsidising the Haj pilgrimage.
This would mean that the nearly one lakh of the total 1.47 lakh Haj pilgrims would face no problem for their subsidised journey to Mecca but a big question mark hangs over future subsidies for this annual pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.
The Bench made it clear that the stay of the August 25 order of the HC was only for the November Haj as the Centre is in an advanced stage of preparations, including a series of steps having national and international repercussions.
It also asked the HC to expeditiously hear and decide, preferably before next year's Haj pilgrimage, a PIL filed by a Shiv Sena activist way back in 1995 seeking a direction to the Centre to stop subsidies for all religious pilgrimages.
When solicitor general G E Vahanvati began arguments assailing the interim order of the HC, the Bench cited the constitutional provision mandating the government not to discriminate on the basis of religion.
"What happened to this secular principle enshrined in the Constitution which the government is bound to follow? Do you subsidise travel of pilgrims to Kumbh melas organised every six or 12 years?" asked the Bench.
Vahanvati cited the examples of the annual Mansarovar and Sabarimala Yatra. He was immediately contradicted by Justice Lakshamanan, who said that he is not aware of any subsidy for the Sabarimala pilgrimage though he was in charge of the temple for some time.
The Bench said providing special trains would not come under the subsidy category as the passengers pay for their travel.
It asked: "The Kumbh mela takes place once every six or 12 years. Except for making provisions for maintaining law and order and hygiene, tell us whether the Centre gives concessions in terms of fares in trains or buses."
To this, Vahanvati said he is ready to argue on the larger question raised by the court.