Summary
The Court replaced the High Court’s directions for full restoration or reimbursement of riot-damaged religious places with Gujarat’s ex gratia scheme. It accepted assistance capped at Rs 50,000 or actual repair cost, whichever was less, subject to the scheme’s eligibility safeguards, as reasonable and comparable to assistance for damaged houses. Eligible claims were to be submitted within eight weeks and decided within three months.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s restoration and reimbursement directions should stand.
- Whether the State’s capped ex gratia scheme met the relevant constitutional and precedential standards.
Provisions considered
- Articles 25, 26 and 27, Constitution of IndiaThe reproduced guarantees and tax-appropriation restriction framed the discussion of religious equality, secularism and permissible assistance. (¶¶ 14–22, 32–34, 39–40)
Held
- The State must treat all faiths equally; protection of property and places of worship is an essential aspect of secularism. The PIL concerned restoration of religious structures rather than compensation for identified individuals’ personal injuries. (¶¶ 10–11, 16–22)
- The Court considered the limited nature of public-law compensation and Article 27 authorities, including the distinction in Prafull Goradia between relatively small assistance and substantial tax allocation for religious promotion or maintenance. It assessed the actual State scheme against that framework and the Archbishop Raphael Cheenath orders. (¶ 23–39)
- The scheme treated public religious places on a par with damaged houses and capped assistance at Rs 50,000 or actual restoration cost, whichever was less. It excluded unauthorised structures and those in public roads or unauthorised locations, required a contemporaneous FIR and required the Collector to verify ownership or administration rights. The Court accepted those terms as reasonable. (¶ 38–40)
- Eligible claimants had eight weeks to approach the scheme authorities, who were to decide within three months of receiving claims. Aggrieved claimants could pursue appropriate remedies according to law. (¶ 41–42)
Result
High Court judgment set aside; appeal disposed of by accepting the State ex gratia scheme and prescribing claim and decision timelines; no costs.