(Kanishk Joshi is a second-year student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala.)
Featured Artwork: The Tribute Money by John Singleton Copley 1782
Introduction
“Public money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous conscientiousness of honor. It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not a beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.”- Thomas Paine
In a recent report published by the Azim Premji University, as many as 230 million individuals in India have fallen below the Below Poverty Line (BPL) in a span of a year after the Pandemic hit the country with a major impact on the states of Kerela, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh among others. In this situation of economic repression, the budget presented by the UP government in February 2021 allocated as many as ₹300 Crore on the Construction of the Ram Mandir construction in the Hindu Deity Ram’s birthplace Ayodhaya. Many other states provide funding for religious activities the Kerela Government providing ₹46.5 Lakh every year to the Travancore Devaswom Fund from its consolidated funds in accordance with Article 290A of the Constitution, Salaries being provided to Imams in Delhi by the government among examples of other states.
In this article, the author will try to examine the constitutional provisions relating to the use of public money in religious practices along with the judgments in its regard and what can be done to get away with the problem.
Secularism in Indian Jurisprudence
The Indian Constitution within itself imbibes the very spirit of secularism. The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which included ‘secular’ in the preamble made what was implicit in the constitution an explicit feature.
The definition of ‘secularism’ according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads as ‘the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.’’
The importance of secularism has also been highlighted by various judgments such as in the much-celebrated judgment of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., it was held by the Apex Court that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only.” In the ruling of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, it was opined that “secularism is a basic feature of our Constitution”.
In advancement of above judgments, the remark by Hon’ble Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Rajnarain & Anr. is of particular importance which said “the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion”
The above judgments show that there should not be any animosity towards any particular religion by the government and there should be a positive tolerance towards every religion and its religious practices. However, the government has to play the role of a referee and should protect the religious sentiments of every citizen but should not itself indulge in any religious practices.
Public Spending on Religious Affairs
In regards to the use of public spending for religious expenditure, Article 27 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that;
“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.”
In the case of Prafull Goradia v. Union of India, the Supreme Court opined that “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 utilized for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination”
The supreme court in its judgment of Union Of India &Ors vs Rafique Shaikh Bhikan & Anr directed for the stepwise withdrawal of the Hajj Subsidy remarking
“We, therefore, direct the Central Government to progressively reduce the amount of subsidy so as to completely eliminate it within a period of 10 years from today.
The subsidy money may be more profitably used for upliftment of the community in education and other indices of social development.”
In a country like ours, where the votes are attracted by political parties on the promises focusing on the religious basis and religion playing a central role in the Indian polity, it seems a far-fetched task to separate religion from the state or vice versa. Nonetheless, overcoming this problem was the goal that the makers of the Constitution wanted to achieve through Article 27. The Supreme has also remarked in one of its verdicts that “The relationship between man and God is an individual choice. The state is forbidden to have allegiance to such an activity”
The author is of the view that public money is extremely important for the development of a nation, more specifically in a nation like India where the income divide is very high. It is the duty of the government to spend every rupee of money to its best use for the betterment of its people
In order to resolve the issue, there should be a division between the state and religion. The model to look up to is the LAÏCITÉ model of secularism.
THE LAÏCITÉ: French Model of Secularism
“When state and religion are one, religion becomes a means to remain in power”
One of the better examples of secularism or rather negative secularism is the French model of Laïcité which translates to ‘secularism’. The state, through this model, had been able to apply the principle of secularism in its truest sense. The concept opines that religion is a private affair of an individual and is not in the public sphere requiring the interference of the state.
This had enabled the state not only to promote religious equality and neutrality but also to be hostile towards the promotion of any religious activity through financial help. The principle does not mean that the state should be inclined towards religion but it rather mandates that the two entities are to be kept distinct from each other.
There is a complete separation of the Church and the State which traces its authority to the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Article 1 of which guarantees the free exercise of religious belief and article 2 contains that the Republic does not recognize any payment or subsidy to any form of worship.
This model helps in the non-interference or influence exerted by religious denominations in the working of the state. This, in turn, buttresses the smooth functioning of a government with more compatibility.
Conclusion
In a developing country like ours, where a large chunk of the population finds it difficult to meet their basic necessities, such enormous spending on religious affairs seems frantic. Moreover, the spirit of secularism that the makers of the Indian Constitution wanted the people of the nation to have within them can be strengthened by a stoppage of spending on religious affairs by the government.
There should be a model like that in France with modulations in the Indian context. The spending on religious affairs should be undertaken by the private religious bodies for aiding their respective communities.
The author will conclude with a quote by Davy Crockett that seems appropriate in the light of the issue;
“We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
Leave a Reply