The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents for quashing and setting aside the ‘Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme.
Challenge in this petition is to the Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the ‘Shri Ramlala Darshan (Ayodhya Dham) Scheme which provides for free Pilgrimage to Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the expenditure on which is to be borne by State exchequer. The impugned Cabinet meeting decision dated 10.01.2024 alongwith the Scheme have been challenged on the ground that they violate the tenet of secularism which is an integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution and democracy.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.
From perusal of the records, the Court noted that the Scheme which is under challenge is a policy decision of the State Government as even before coming into power, the ruling party in its manifesto had promised the domicile of Chhattisgarh for taking them to Ayodhya for pilgrimage. The Scheme is basically for the poor people and is open to all. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Scheme prohibits or bars the people of faith other than the Hindus to participate or avail the benefit of the said Scheme. Furthermore, how the Scheme would cause any harm to the secular structure of the State has also not been explained.
The petitioner himself had been a political person associated earlier with political parties and this petition appears to the Court as nothing but an attempt to gain some personal/political mileage, though the petitioner claims that at present he is not associated with any political party. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a policy decision of the State can normally be not interfered with, the Court further noted.
The decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (supra) and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Satish Agrawal (supra) are distinguishable on facts. The Scheme in the present case is open to all the domicile of State of Chhattisgarh and not limited or restricted to a particular religion and as such, the same is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. In Satish Agrawal (supra) GOMs No. 29, dated 21.07.2008 was challenged which related to operationalise the scheme for assistance to Christian pilgrimage by deploying the budgeted amount of Rs. 2 Crores. In the said case, the scheme was solely for the people of Christian faith and not open to the general public of all faiths.
The case relied on by the counsel for the petitioner on Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra) itself is contrary to his arguments as the Supreme Court, in paragraph 12 of the has observed as under:
“12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such matters. ”
Further, the Supreme Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra), has observed as under:
“114. The question of locus standi in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333]. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in paragraph 88 of the judgment: –
“88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.”
168. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or malafide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.
169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.
170. Normally, there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action.”
The Bench observed that the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the Scheme of the State Government is inconsistent with the Constitution of India or is arbitrary or irrational or discriminatory as the same is open to all the domicile of Chhattisgarh and not for any particular religion. Further, the Scheme in question is a policy decision of the State which cannot be interfered with as the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the action of the State is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of the power. In the present case, the Court was not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.