Muslim clerics, leaders welcome apex court ruling on Haj

May 8, 2012

hajj_copy


New Delhi/Lucknow, May 8: Majority of Muslim clerics and leaders Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling directing the government to eliminate in the next 10 years the subsidy given to Hajis - pilgrims to the holy Makkah.

The clerics and leaders said that instead of providing subsidies, the Haj committee, an autonomous body under the Indian government responsible for making arrangement for Haj pilgrimage, should be revamped.

The leaders demanded open tendering of tickets which would result in Air India, which at present has the ticketing monopoly, having to compete with other airlines to attract maximum travellers and giving cheaper tickets.

“We welcome this ruling. If people from other religions don’t get subsidies for pilgrimages, why should we. We all are equal citizens of the country,” Mukarram Ahmed, Shahi Imam of Delh’s Fatehpuri Masjid, told IANS.

Agreed Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari: “It should not take ten years for the ban on subsidy to come into effect but it should be done away with within a year.”

“The Haj committee should be made more powerful and better services, including cheap tickets, should be offered to those going on the pilgrimage,” Vice-Chancellor of Darul Uloom Deoband Mufti Abul Qasim Nomani told IANS.

“There should be open tendering of tickets so that there is competition and we get the best deal,” he added.

Bukhari slammed the present subsidy scheme and accused Air India of overcharging.

“Just because they have a monopoly, a Delhi to Jeddah ticket costs us Rs.45,000 whereas Saudi Arabian airlines’ ticket costs only Rs.22,000. Where is the money going? ... in the pockets of Air India,” said Bukhari.

Sunni community leader Haji Khalid Rasheed too said they were demanding for a long time that the subsidy by the union government be withdrawn.

"We have asked the government to axe the subsidy and to alternately follow it up with open tendering of air tickets… which would bring down the ticket prices heavily,” he said in Lucknow.

However, some like Shia cleric Kalbe Jawwad of Lucknow said the apex court was "not within its rights to make laws" as it was a custodian of laws and the ruling may hit the poor Muslims who would be deprived of their holy Haj.

Agreed Wasim Ahmad, Uttar Pradesh minister for basic education, who said he was "feeling let down" by the ruling. "What can I say on this, it is sad ... but then it is that way that the apex court works," he mused.

Many said that if someone is poor and not able to undertake a Haj, there is nothing wrong in it.

“A Haj is undertaken only if you have the money, are in good health and have performed all your duties towards your family. Going on a Haj with money you borrowed from someone is absolutely prohibited,” said Mukarram Ahmed.

“The withdrawal of subsidy won’t have any effect on us and we have no objection,” he added.

When IANS contacted the Haj Committee of India’s Delhi office, the officer in charge refused to comment on the ruling.

India provides subsidy to over a lakh pilgrims who go to Makkah and Madina annually and spends over Rs.600 crore ($120 million) every year on the pilgrimage.

The government provided subsidised air fare to 120,131 pilgrims in 2009, to 126,191 pilgrims in 2010, and 125,051 pilgrims in 2011.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Aftab Alam Tuesday directed the government to eliminate the subsidy for Haj pilgrims in the next 10 years. The court also directed that the goodwill delegation sent by the government every year to Makkah should now be scaled down to two from its present strength of 30.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 21,2024

adani.jpg

Shares of Adani Group companies lost about $28 billion in market value in morning trade on Thursday after US prosecutors charged the billionaire chairman of the Indian conglomerate in an alleged bribery and fraud scheme.

Gautam Adani's flagship company Adani Enterprises tumbled 23 per cent, while Adani Ports, Adani Total Gas, Adani Green, Adani Power, Adani Wilmar and Adani Energy Solutions, ACC , Ambuja Cements and NDTV fell between 20 per cent and 90 per cent.

Adani group's 10 listed stocks had a total market capitalisation of about $141 billion at 0534 GMT, compared to $169.08 billion on Tuesday.

US authorities said Adani and seven other defendants, including his nephew Sagar Adani, agreed to pay about $265 million in bribes to Indian government officials to obtain contracts expected to yield $2 billion of profit over 20 years, and develop India's largest solar power plant project.

Adani Green in a statement on Thursday said the US Justice Department had issued a criminal indictment against board members Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani and the Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a civil complaint against them.

The US Justice Department also included Adani Green board member Vneet Jaain in the criminal indictment, it said.

Adani Green's units had decided not to proceed with the proposed US dollar denominated bond offerings due to developments, it added.

"Investors will shy away from Adani Group stocks ... and that's what this sharp selling is signifying," said Saurabh Jain, assistant vice president of retail equities research at SMC Global Securities.

"This could hurt the credibility of the group and maybe borrowing costs will rise," he said.

The indictment comes nearly two years after US shortseller Hindenburg Research alleged that Adani had improperly used tax havens and was involved in stock manipulation, allegations the conglomerate denied.

Also in early Asian trading on Thursday, Adani dollar bonds slumped, with prices down 3c-5c on bonds for Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone. The falls were the largest since the Adani Group came under a short-seller attack in February 2023.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 11,2024

birensingh.jpg

The Manipur Kuki MLAs have released a statement calling out Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's 'lies' in the Supreme Court. In a joint statement, the MLAs, including those from the Bharatiya Janata Party, said they had not had any meeting with the Chief Minister since May 3, 2023, nor did they intend to meet him in the future as “he was the mastermind behind the violence”.

As per the MLAs, the SG lied about state CM N Biren Singh speaking to Kuki MLAs to control the situation there, in order to halt a Supreme Court probe into the leaked tapes which allege that Singh has been complicit in the violence that broke out between Kukis and Meitis there.

"We...clarify that we have never had any meeting with Chief Minister, Shri N. Biren Singh since May 3, 2023, nor have any intention to meet him in future as he is the mastermind behind the violence and ethnic cleansing of our people from the Imphal valley, which is continuing till today, the latest being the brutal killing and burning of Mrs Zosangkim Hmar on November 7, 2024," the letter read, while condemning the recent 'barbaric' killing of the woman there, and noting the SG's assertion is 'tantamount' to misleading the top court.

“We, the undersigned ten MLAs, have come to know that during the Supreme Court hearing held on November 8, 2024, the Solicitor General of India submitted that ‘CM is meeting all Kuki MLAs and trying to bring the situation down to get peace’. In this connection, we hereby categorically state that this submission is a blatant lie and tantamount to misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition by a Kuki organisation, asked that it submit audio tapes to substantiate its claim that the Chief Minister was instrumental in inciting and organising violence in the northeastern State.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta orally informed the court that the Chief Minister was meeting all the Kuki-Zo MLAs and that peace in the State had come at a huge cost.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.