Telangana High Court
Dr. Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 16 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.18395 of 2009
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appears as amicus curiae.
Mr. Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the State.
2. The petitioner claims to be an Engineering Graduate (Telecommunication) and has retired as Chairman and Managing Director of Vidhesh Sanchar Nigam Limited. The petitioner claims to have authored many articles of public interest both in Telugu and English and various articles were published in various journals. The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of "Pragna Bharati", an intellectual think tank Association and also publisher of monthly journal of "Bharatiya Pragna". In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner is actively involved in organization, development, construction and protection of ancient temples in CJ & JAK, J 2 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 various districts. It is the case of the petitioner that the State is prohibited from providing any financial assistance to support any religion or religious activities. The petitioner therefore in this Writ Petition has assailed various Government Orders by which grant-in-aid was accorded to the implementation of Scheme of Repairs, Maintenance and Protection of Institutions belonging to Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zorastrians (Parsis). Admittedly, grants have been sanctioned and disbursed in the year 2009. The reliefs sought in this Writ Petition filed as Public Interest Litigation are extracted below for the facility of reference.
"a) declaring the schemes of 1st respondent in promotion of religious purposes of Christianity by extending grant-in-aid for constructions, repairs, maintenance, improvement, and renovations etc of institutions belong to Christians as unconstitutional beside being violative of Art. 14, 25, 26, 27, 266 and 283 of the Constitution of India
b) declare further G.O.Ms.Nos.42 dated 19.12.2001 for other Minority Communities i.e., Christian, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) and the implementation of the said Scheme in the G.O.Ms.Nos.42 dated 19.12.2001 by issuing further G.O.Ms.Nos.2 and 3 dated 8.2.2002 which provide Grant-in-aid for institutions belong to Christian communities as unconstitutional CJ & JAK, J 3 W.P.No.18395 of 2009
c) and consequentially set aside the G.O. Ms.Nos.42 dated 19.12.2001, 2 dated 8.2.2002, 3 dated 8.2.2002, 414 dated 1.9.2008, 416 dated 1.9.2008, 421 dated 2.9.2009, 422 dated 2.9.2008, 429 dated 5.9.2008, 430 dated 5.9.2008, 431 dated 5.9.2008, 432 dated 5.9.2008, 433 dated 5.9.2008, 434 dated 5.9.2008, 435 dated 5.9.2008, 439 dated 6.9.2008, 440 dated 6.9.2008, 441 dated 6.9.2008, 442 dated 6.9.2008, 444 dated 6.9.2008, 445 dated 6.9.2008, 503 dated 11.9.2008, 529 dated 15.9.2008, 530 dated 15.9.2008, 531 dated 15.9.2008, 532 dated 15.9.2008, 533 dated 15.9.2008, 534 dated 15.9.2008, 535 dated 15.9.2008, 536 dated 15.9.2008, 548 dated 19.9.2008, 549 dated 19.9.2008, 560 dated 26.9.2008, 572 dated 27.9.2008, 573 dated 27.9.2008, G.O.Rt.No.nil dated 27.9.2008, GORT No.575 dated 27.9.2008, G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 27.9.2008, 576 dated 27.9.2008, 577 dated 27.9.2008, 578 dated 7.9.2008, 585 dated 29.9.2008, 707 dated 24.11.2008, G.O.Rt.No.94 dated 21.2.2009, GO RT No.125 dated 2.3.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.126 dated 2.3.2009."
3. This Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 05.02.2024 and thereafter, requested Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, to assist this Court as amicus curiae.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and has submitted that Government Orders impugned in the Writ CJ & JAK, J 4 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 Petition are contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution of India and therefore, liable to be quashed.
5. Learned amicus curiae has submitted that Article 27 of the Constitution of India permits specific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. It is also submitted that grants can be considered for proper administration and the income duly be appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist and in such a case, the question of favouring to any particular religion or religious denomination in such cases does not arise.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General has supported the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae and has submitted that it may not be proper for this Court to examine the grant which was made and disbursed in the year 2009.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Article 27 deals with CJ & JAK, J 5 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. Article 27 is extracted below for the facility of reference.
"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 religious denomination."
8. The Supreme Court had considered the scope and ambit of Article 27 in State of Gujarat and another v. Islamic Belief Committee, Gujarat and others 1, paras 33 and 34 of which are extracted below for the facility of reference.
"33. In Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments 2, the Court, while commenting on Article 27, held thus: (AIR pp. 296- 97, para 50) "50.... What is forbidden by the article is the specific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. The reason underlying this provision is obvious. Ours being a secular State and there being freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, both to individuals and to groups, it is against the policy of the Constitution to pay out of public funds any money for the promotion or 1 (2018) 13 Supreme Court Cases 687 2 AIR 1954 SC 282 CJ & JAK, J 6 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. But the object of the contribution under Section 76 of the Madras Act is not the fostering or preservation of the Hindu religion or any denomination within it. The purpose is to see that religious trusts and institutions, wherever they exist, are properly administered. It is a secular administration of the religious institution that the legislature seeks to control and the object, as enunciated in the Act, is to ensure that the endowments attached to the religious institutions are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. There is no question of favouring any particular religion or religious denomination in such cases. In our opinion, Article 27 of the Constitution is not attracted to the facts of the present case."
34. In Prafull Goradia v. Union of India 3, the Court, while interpreting Article 27, referred to the decisions in Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments (supra), Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa 4 and also alluded to T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 5 and opined that the said decisions did not really deal with Article 27 at any depth. Elaborating further, the two-Judge Bench held: (Prafull Goradia case (supra), SCC pp. 572-73, paras 6-8 &10) "6. There can be two views about Article 27. One view can be that Article 27 is attracted only when the statute by which the tax is levied specifically states that the proceeds of the tax will be utilised for a particular religion. The other view can be that Article 27 will be attracted even when the statute is a general 3 (2011) 2 SCC 568 4 AIR 1954 SC 400 5 (2002) 8 SCC 481 CJ & JAK, J 7 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 statute, like the Income Tax Act or the Central Excise Act or the State Sales Tax Acts (which do not specify for what purpose the proceeds will be utilised) provided that a substantial part of such proceeds are in fact utilised for a particular religion. 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. The principles of interpreting the Constitution are to some extent different from those of interpreting an ordinary statute vide the judgment of Hon'ble Sikri, J. in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 6 (vide SCC para 15). The object of Article 27 is to maintain secularism, and hence we must construe it from that angle.
7. As Lord Wright observed in James v.
7Commonwealth of Australia , a Constitution is not to be interpreted in a narrow or pedantic manner d (followed in Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938, In re 8). This is because a Constitution is a constituent or organic statute, vide British Coal Corpn. v. R. 9 and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (vide SCC 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 Marshal, C.J. of the US Supreme Court observed in M'Culloch v. Maryland 10 and Holmes, J. in Missouri v.
6(1973) 4 SCC 225 7 1936 AC 578: (1936) All ER 1449 (PC) 8 1938 SCC OnLine FC 2 9 1935 SCC OnLine PC 27 10 4 L Ed 579: 17 US 316 (1819) CJ & JAK, J 8 W.P.No.18395 of 2009 Holland 11. Hence a strict construction cannot be given to it.
8. In our opinion Article 27 would be violated if a 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 utilised for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. In other words, suppose 25% of the entire income tax collected in India was utilised for promoting or maintaining any particular religion or religious denomination, that, in our opinion, would be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution.
10. In our opinion, if only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised 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 utilised for any particular religion that Article 27 would be violated." (emphasis in original) Be it stated, in the said case the Court was dealing with the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, 1959 and the Amendment Act, 2002 on the foundation that the said Act is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 27 of the Constitution."
9. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, no interference with the impugned Government Orders is called for by this Court at this point of time.
111920 SCC OnLine US SC 75 CJ & JAK, J 9 W.P.No.18395 of 2009
10. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. Before parting, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the able assistance offered to this Court by Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 16th FEBRUARY, 2024.
kvni