Spending part of tax money for providing facilities to any religious denomination does not violate Article 27: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that if the State spends some money out of the taxes/revenue collected by it from the citizens and appropriates some amount for providing some conveniences or facilities to any religious denomination, it will not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India.

Court stressed that there exits a clear line of distinction between a secular activity and religious activity which may be undertaken by the State, like providing conveniences and facilities and indulgence of a State in the maintenance and propagation of religion or religious denomination.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Moti Lal Yadav, practicing at the high court, for quashing of a Government Order (GO) dated March 10, 2023 issued by the tourism department pertaining to the celebration of Ashtami and Shri Ram Navami on March 29 and 30, 2023. 

The impugned GO, among other directions, provided for a special drive to be taken to ensure the participation of women and girls in the programs. Moreover, the GO directed that on the occasion of Ashtami and Shri Ram Navami, Akhand Ramayan Path and other religious activities be organized at main Shakti Peeth Temples to publicize human, social and national values amongst the general public.

For all the activities mentioned in the GO, provisions were also made for financial aid by the state government at Block, Tehsil, and District levels.

The petitioner argued that the state government though made provisions for financial aid for performing religious activities in the temples during Navratri, it did not make any provision for Muslims during the holy month of Ramzan.

The petitioner alleged that the government's such act was discriminatory. 

Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution of India protect every citizen of India from being compelled to pay any tax and prohibits State in participation of any religious authority...However, the Constitution does not make any provision for the State to propagate any particular religious activity, the petitioner contended. 

Therefore, the petitioner requested the court to quash the impugned GO for being violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India.

The PIL plea was opposed by the counsel for the state government who asserted that through the impugned GO, the state government was not seeking to propagate any religious activity.

He stressed that the amount of Rs.1,00,000 per district under the impugned GO was to be paid not to the priests of the temples, but to the Artists/Performers through District Tourist and Culture Council.

The counsel for state alleged that the petitioner misread and misconstrued the impugned GO as it did not contain any direction or instruction to promote any religious activity or propagate any religion.

The division bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla found weight in the arguments put forth by the counsel for the government. Court observed that impugned GO had made provision for financial aid not for any religious activity or for promotion of any religion or religious denomination; rather, the said amount has been provided for being paid honorarium to the performers/Artists who were to perform during the celebrations. 

Court said, "We need to clearly draw distinction between a "religious activity" leading to maintaining or propagating a particular religion or religious denomination and a "secular activity" undertaken by the State to provide for certain conveniences at religious gatherings".

Court underscored that what prohibited for the state is indulgence in religious activity or the activities amounting to propagation of any religion or religious denomination and not a secular activity, however, the same was not the case in the present matter. 

Court held the financial aid through the impugned GO a simple secular activity of the State in publicizing the developmental works undertaken by the State.

Court, thus, dismissed the PIL plea while holding that the petitioner misread the impugned GO.

Case Title: Moti Lal Yadav v. State Of U.P. and Others