Court orders India to scrap hajj subsidies

The court also scrapped New Delhi's plans to send a nine-member official team to Mecca for Haj.


Afp May 08, 2012

NEW DELHI: India's Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the government to scrap a state policy of subsidising the travel of thousands of Muslims to Mecca for Haj.

"We hold that the policy is best done away with," said Justice Altamas Kabir, striking down New Delhi's argument that pilgrims were entitled to the state help once in their lifetime.

The court also scrapped New Delhi's plans to send a nine-member official team to Mecca for Haj.

The court stipulated that only two officials should go to the world's biggest gathering in Saudi Arabia - guardian of the two holiest Muslim places in the cities of Mecca and Medina.

According to official records, nearly 125,000 Indians enjoyed the Haj subsidy last year.

The government subsidises state-run Air India, which offers cut-rate tickets to Indian pilgrims.

COMMENTS (17)

You Said It | 11 years ago | Reply

@Faraz: The expense on Amarnath yatra and the Kumbh mela is on security. The government also provides security for every Muharram procession and to all major mosques.

There is a big difference between paying for people's tickets to a pilgrimmage as in the case of Hajj and providing facilities and security infrastructure at major religious sites.

G. Din | 11 years ago | Reply

It was a nice little cozy arrangement: Your vote for a post-dated cheque on the public exchequer. If you didn't get elected, you were not responsible for making good on the promise. Most political parties learnt it from Nehru and his party. If Supreme Court hadn't weighed in, the day was not far off when Raoul Ghandy would dip his ladle into the pot of soup to pour it into the waiting begging bowl of a freeloader and the ladle would come up empty. People were getting fed up with this broad daylight skulduggery!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ