Gujarat HC tells government to develop holy sites of all religions

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Monday ordered the Gujarat Pavitra Yatradham Vikas Board of the state government to include pilgrimage sites of all religions in allocation of funds for development of pilgrimage sites.
According to the petitioner, Mujahid Nafees, the high court sought an all-inclusive list of religious sites from the government by June 14, when a further hearing will be held on the PIL questioning the secular credentials of the Gujarat government, as it allots development funds only for Hindu religious sites.
The PIL last October objected to the board’s decision to only allocate funds for development of Hindu pilgrimage sites – 358 of them - and to exclude religious sites of faiths – Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. It contended that funding religious places of only one faith and ignoring those of other religions was illegal and violated the Constitution of India.
The PIL contended that the government, being secular, is expected not to promote and maintain religious sites of one particular community from taxes and proceeds collected from all citizens. Public money must not be spent for promotion and maintenance of religious sites of one particular religion.
The petitioner also maintained that the expenditure incurred by the state government only on Hindu religious places was against the rules and regulation of the board. The funds are aimed at creating lodging and boarding facilities for pilgrims at religious places and are not meant for maintenance of temples by footing their electricity bills etc.
The board was constituted in 1995 and two years later the temples of Ambaji, Dakor, Girnar, Palitana, Somnath and Dwarka were declared ‘pavitra yatradhams’. More than two decades later, this list has grown up exponentially to cover 358 temples, the exclusion of shrines of any other religions raised question about the government’s commitment to secular principles.
The petitioner obtained details from the government about this spending under provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. After receiving the information, the petitioner even made a representation to the government, but to no avail.