Guj HC seeks state govt's response to PIL against pilgrimage devp board

The Gujarat High Court Monday directed the state government to respond to a PIL which termed "unconstitutional" the latter's decision to develop only Hindu pilgrimage sites through Gujarat Pavitra Yatradham Vikas Board since it was set up in 1997.

The division bench of acting Chief Justice Anant S Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav directed the government to file its reply by June 14, stating why it has not included pilgrimage sites of religions other than Hinduism for development through the board.

Petitioner Mujahid Nafees had filed a PIL in October 2018, through his lawyer K R Koshty, contending that setting up the Pavitra Yatradham Board was illegal as it only promoted pilgrimage sites of Hinduism.

The state government had earlier sought time to file its reply.

The petitioner had sought the court's direction to hold as "illegal and violative of Constitution of India" the government's decision to exclude pilgrimage sites of other religions for development through the board.

The PIL stated that the board promotes only Hindu religious sites, which is in contravention of the Constitution, and hence "required to be modified in order to include places of other religions as well".

It said the board announced its first list of six religious sites -- Ambaji, Dakor, Girnar, Palithana, Somnath and Dwarka -- for promotion as "pavitra yatradham" (holy pilgrimage sites) in August 1997.

Over time, the list grew to cover 358 sites, but "not a single religious site of other religions has been included", the PIL said.

"The action of the state government in selecting only a particular religion for promoting its religious spots is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside," it said.

"Taxes and proceeds collected from citizens should not be spent over the promotion and maintenance of religious sites of a particular religion. Therefore, the constitution of the Pavitra Yatradham Board is in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution," it said.