Holding

The Haj Committee Act, 2002 does not violate Articles 27, 14 or 15 and is constitutionally valid.

Summary

Prabull Goradia, a Hindu, filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, 2002, alleging that taxes he pays are used to fund the Muslim Haj pilgrimage, thereby violating Articles 27, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court examined the scope of Article 27, holding that it is attracted only when a substantial part of tax revenue is earmarked for a particular religion. Since the petition did not demonstrate that a substantial portion of any tax is spent on the Haj, the Court found no violation. It also observed that the government provides comparable assistance to other religious pilgrimages, negating any claim of discrimination under Articles 14 and 15. The Court affirmed Parliament’s competence to enact the Act under List I, Entry 20, and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Haj Committee Act, 2002 violates Article 27 of the Constitution by using tax revenues for a specific religion.
Whether the Act contravenes Articles 14 and 15 by discriminating against non‑Muslims.
Whether Parliament has legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 27
Haj Committee Act

Subjects

Constitutional validityArticle 27Article 14Article 15SecularismTaxationHaj pilgrimageReligious discriminationLegislative competence

Judgment

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 579

PRAFULL GORADIA A
· ~
v.
' UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2007)
JANUARY 28, 2011
B
[MARKANDEY kATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Haj Committee Act, 2002 - Constitutional validity of -
Challenge to - Writ petition - Plea of the petitioner that he is
a Hindu but has to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose c
proceeds go for the purpose of Haj pilgrimage, which is only
done by Muslims - Held: Article 27 would be violated if a
'
' substantial part of the entire income taxi central excise!
customs duties/sales tax or any other tax collected in India,
were to be utilized for promotion or maintenance of any D
particular religion or religious denomination - It is nowhere
mentioned in the writ petition as. to what percentage of any
particular tax has been utilized for the purpose of the Haj
pilgrimage - If only a relatively small part of any tax collected
is utilized for providing some conveniences or facilities or E
concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be
violative of Article 27 of the Constitution - Thus, there is no
;-·
violation of Article 27 as also Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 27, 14, 15
and 32.
F
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlicle 27 - When attracted
- Held: Article 27 is a provision in the Constitution, and not
an ordinary statute - It is attracted when the statute by which
the tax is levied specifically states that the proceeds of the
tax would be utilized for a particular religion - Article 27 would G
J:?e attracted even when the statute is a general statute, like
the Income Tax Act or the Central Excise Act or the State
Sa/es Tax Acts, which do not speciflJ for what purpose the

579 H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A proceeds would be utilized provided that a substantial part of
such proceeds are in fact utilized for a particular religion. .-,...

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 (5) SCR 1005; Jagannath
Ramanuj Das vs. State of Orissa and Anr. 1954(5) SCR
8
1046; T. M.A. Pae Foundation vs. State of Karnataka AIR
2003 SC 355; Kesavanand Bharati vs. State of Kera/a 1973
(4) SGC 225; Tansport ans Dock Workers Union vs. Mumbai
Port Trust 2010(12) Scale 217; Government of Andhra
Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi AIR 2008 SC 1640; Kai/as and
C Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2011(1)19; Hinsa Virodhak
Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamaat AIR 2008 SC 1892
- referred to.

James vs. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) AC 578;
D British Coal Corporation vs. The King AIR 1935 P.C. 158;
McCulloch vs. Maryland 17 U.S. 316(1819); Missourie vs.
Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920); Bain Peanut Co. vs. Pinson,
282 U.S. 499 (1931 ); Missourie, Kansas and Tennessee ·
Railroad vs. May 194 U.S. 267 (1904) ,_ referred to.
E
Case Law Reference:
1954 (5) SCR 1005 Referred to Para 6
1954(5) SCR 1046 Referred to Para 6
F AIR 2003 SC 355 Referred to Para 6
1973 (4) sec 22s Referred to Para 8, 9
(1936) AC 578 Referred to Para 9
AIR 1935 P.C. 158 Referrfi?d to Para 9
G
17 us 316(1819) Referred to Para 9
252 U.S. 416(1920) Referred to Para 9
282 U.S. 499 (1.931) Referred to Para 17
_l:L
PRAFULL GORADIA v. UNION OF INDIA 581

194 U.S. 267 (1904) Referred to Para 17 A
2010(12) Scale 217 Referred to Para 20
AIR 2008 SC 1640 Referred to Para 21
JT 2011 (1) 19 Referred to Para 24
B
AIR 2008 SC 1892 Referred to Para 24

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
...).;_
1 of 2007.

M.N. Krishnamani, Alok Singh, Soumyajit Pani, Amit c
Kumar, V.M. Srivastava, P.D. Sharma for the Petitioner.

.. Ashok Bhan, Shweta Verma, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Sushma
Suri for the Respondent.
D
The following order of the Court was delivered
~

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
E
2. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
had been initially filed challenging the constitutional validity of
the Haj Committee Act 1959, but thereafter by an amendment
+ application the Haj Committee Act of 2002 which replaced the
1959 Act, has been challenged.
F
3. The ground for challenge is that the said Act is violative
of Articles 14, 15, and 27 of the Constitution. The grievance of
the petitioner is that he is a Hindu but he has to pay direct and
indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds go for the purpose of
the Haj pilgrimage, which is only done by Muslims. For the Haj, G
"'--,. the Indian Government inter alia grants a subsidy in the air fare
of the pilgrims.

4. Particular emphasis has been given by the petitioner
to Article 27 of the Constitution which states:-
H
"'.
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A "27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for
promotion of any particular religion.-No person shall
be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are
specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the
promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or
B religious denomination."

5. The petitioner contends that his fundamental right under
Article 27 of the Constitution is being violated. We have,
therefore, to correctly understand and interpret Article 27. _),.

c 6. There are not many decisions which have given an
indepth interpretation of Article 27. The decision in
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, 1954 (5) SCR 1005 held (vide
page 1045) that since the object of the Madras Hindu Religious
D and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 is not to foster or
preserve the Hindu religion but to see that religious trusts and ·~
institutions are properly administered, Article 27 is not attracted.
The same view was taken in Jagannath Ramanuj Das vs. State
of Orissa and Anr. 1954(5) SCR 1046. The decision in T.M.A.
E Pae Foundation vs. State of Kamataka, AIR 2003 SC 355
(vide paragraph 85) does not really deal with Article 27 at any
depth.

7. There can be two views about Article 27. One view can +
be that Article 27 is attracted only when the statute by which
F the tax is levied specifically states that the proceeds of the tax
•
will be utilized for a particular religion. The other view can be
that Article 27 will be attracted even when the statute is a general
statute, like the Income Tax Act or the Central Excise Act or the
State Sales Tax Acts (which do not specify for what purpose
G the proceeds will be utilized) provided that a substantial part
--,..--_,.--r
of such proceeds are in fact utilized for a particular religion.
8. In our opinion Article 27 will be attracted in both these
eventualities. This is because Article 27 is a provision in the
Constitution, and not an ordinary statute. Principles of
H
.- ·;.~.,;~~;,'#~1r-:·'""""'°!'•· ~' .,,,
,..
PRAFULL GORADIA v. UNION OF INDIA 583

interpreting the Constitution are to some extent different from A
--<
those of interpreting an ordinary statute vide judgment of Hon'ble
· Sikri, J. in Kesavanand Bharati vs. tate of Kera/a, 1973 (4)
SCC 225 (vide para 15). The object of Article 27 is to maintain
secularism, and hence we must construe it fr9m that angle.
9. As Lord Wright observed in James vs. Commonwealth · B
of Australia, (1936) AC 578 .• a Constitution is not to be
_.._ interpreted in a narrow or pedantic manner (followed in re C.P.
& Berar Act, AIR 1939 F.C.I.). This is because a Constitution
is a constituent or organic statute, vide British Coal
Corporation vs. The King, AIR 1935 P.C. 158 and c
Kesavanand Bharati vs. State of Kera/a, 1973 (4) SCC 225
(vide para 506). While a statute must ordinarily be construed
as on the day it was enacted, a Constitution cannot be
construed in that manner, for it is intended to endure for ages
to come, as Chief Justice Marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court D
observed in McCulloch vs. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316(1819) and
by Mr. Justice Holmes in Missourie vs. Holland, 252 U.S.
416(1920). Hence a strict construction cannot be given to it.
10. In our opinion Article 27 would be violated if a E
substantial part of the entire income tax collected in India, or
a substantial part of the entire central excise or the customs
duties or sales tax, or a substantial part of any other tax
collected in India, were to be utilized for promotion o~
maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
F
In other wordf:, suppose 25 per cent of the entire income tax
collected in India was utilized for promoting or maintaining any
particular religion or religicus denomination, that, in our opinion,
•. would be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution .
.... 1 11. However, the petitioner has not made any averment G
·-- in his Writ Petition that a substantial part of any tax collected
in India is utilized for the purpose of Haj. All that has been said
in paragraph 5 (i) and (ii) of the Writ Petition is :-
"(i) That the respondent herein has be.en imposing '
and collecting various kinds of direct and indirect taxes H'
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A from the petitioner and other citizens of the country.
~
(ii) That a part of the taxes so collected have been
utilized for various purposes including promotion and
•
maintenance of a particular religion and religious
institutions."
8
12. Thus, it is nowhere mentioned in the Writ Petition as ..
to what percentage of any particular tax has been utilized for
the purpose of the Haj pilgrimage. The allegation in para 5(ii) ;IL
of the Writ Petition is very vague.
c 13. In our opinion, if only a relatively small part of any tax
collected is utilized for providing some conveniences or
facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that
would not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution. It is only
when a substantial part of the tax is utilized for any particular
D religion that Article 27 would be violated.

14. As pointed out in para 8 (iv), (v) and (viii) of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government, the State
Government incurs some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela, the
E Central Government incurs expenditure for facilitating Indian
citizens to go on pilgrimage to Mansarover, etc. Similarly in para
8 (vii) of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that some State
Governments provide facilities to Hindu and Sikh pilgrims to
visit Temples and Gurudwaras in Pakistan. These are very small
expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected.
F
15. Moreover, in para 8(iii) of the counter affidavit the
Central Government has stated that it is not averse to the idea
of granting support to the pilgrimage conducted by any
community.
G -~
16. In our opinion, we must not be too rigid in these
matters, and must give some free play to the joints of the State
machinery. A balanced view has to be taken here, and we
cannot say that even if one paisa of Government money is spent
for a particular religion there will be violation of Article 27. I
H
I
PRAFULL GORADIA v. UNION OF INDIA 585

17. As observed by Mr. Justice Holmes, the celebrated A
-'(
Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bain Peanut Co. vs.
Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501 (1931) "The interpretation of
constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must
remember that the machinery of the government would not work
if it were not allowed a little play in its joints" (see also 8
Missourie, Kansas and Tennessee Railroad vs. May, 194
U.S. 267 (1904).
~ 18. Hence, in our opinion, there is no violation of Article
27 of the Constitution.
c
19. There is also no violation of Articles 14 and 15
because facilities are also given, and expenditures incurred,
by the Central and State Governments in India for other
religions. Thus there is no discrimination.
20. In Transport & Dock Workers Union vs. Mumbai Port D
-~ Trust, 2010(12) Scale 217 this Court observed that Article 14
cannot be interpreted in a doctrinaire or dogmatic manner. It
is not prudent or pragmatic for the Court to insist on absolute
equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies,
as in the present case (vide paragraphs 39-and 43). E

21. Apart from the above, we have held in Government of
Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi, AIR 2008 SC 1640 that
~y
Court should exercise great restraint when deciding the
constitutionality of a statute, and every-effort sho~ld be made
F
to uphold its validity.

22. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the
Haj Committee Act in view of entry 20 to List 1 of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution which states : "Pilgrimages to
.,., places outside India". G
23. Thus there is no force in this petition and it is
dismissed.
24. Before parting with this case we would like to mention
that India is a country of tremendous diversity, which is due to H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A the fact that it is broadly a country of immigrants (like North
America) as explained in detail by us jn Kai/as & Others vs.
State of Maharashtra, JT 2011 (1) 19. As observed in
paragraph 32 of the said decision, since India is a country of
great diversity, it is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our
B country united to have tolerance and equal respect for all
communities and sects (see also in this connection the decision
in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamaat,
AIR 2008 SC 1892 vide paragraphs 41 to 60). It is due to the ,J._
wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution
c which is secular in character, and which caters to the
tremendous ~iversity in our country.
25. It may be mentioned that when India became
independent in 1947 there were partition riots in many parts of
the sub-continent, and a large number of people were killed,
D injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that
time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a
cool head. It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under
the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head
and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a
E Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time
because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic State and
hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru and our other leaders to declare a Hindu l
State. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and
F kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state.
26. This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India
is still united. In this sub-continent, with all its tremendous
diversity (because 92 per cent of the people living in the sub
continent are descendants of immigrants) the only policy which
G can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism --r
and giving equal respect to all communities, sects,
denominations, etc.

N.J. Petition dismissed.
H