The object of Article 27 is to maintain secularism, the top court had observed in its August 2017 judgement, while setting aside the high court order.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld its decision, which had set aside a Gujarat High Court order that directed the state to rebuild shrines that were destroyed during the 2002 communal riots using taxpayers' money.
The apex court reasserted its view that taxpayers' money cannot be used to rebuild religious structures on the heels of Article 27 of the Constitution, which prohibits spending of public money for religious purposes or promotion of any religion.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra dismissed the review petition filed by the Islamic Relief Committee, Gujarat (IRCG). However, the bench, which also comprised Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud found no error apparent on the face of the record, which required the top court to reconsider its decision.
The object of Article 27 is to maintain secularism, the top court had observed in its August 2017 judgement, while setting aside the high court order.
The HC order had come on the heels of a petition filed by NGO Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (IRCG) that sought to survey "mosques, dargahs, graveyards, khankahs and other religious places and institutions desecrated, damaged and/or destroyed during the communal riots in 2002".
However, the BJP-led state government had filed an appeal against the HC order, directing it to pay compensation to over 500 shrines damaged during the 2002 communal riots that followed the train burning incident in Godhra.
Representing the state, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta had then pointed out that the state already had a scheme under which an ex-gratia fixed payment is given to houses and religious structures that are damaged under this ambit.
The bench then approved the state government's scheme for paying up to a maximum Rs 50,000 as ex-gratia assistance to authorised religious places which were damaged, destroyed or desecrated.
Legal Talk
- The object of Article 27 is to maintain secularism, the SC had observed, while setting aside the high court order. The HC order had come on the heels of a petition filed by an NGO
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "laws-thinkstock")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}