![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| National |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
National
Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on September 18 a special leave petition (SLP) against an Allahabad High Court judgment quashing the Centre's policy of granting financial subsidy to Haj pilgrims every year. Considering the urgency involved, Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati pleaded for a stay of the August 25 judgment. But a Bench comprising Justices B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar and Lokeshwar Singh Panta said the matter would be heard on September 18, when he could press for a stay. On a petition from B.N. Shukla challenging the grant of subsidy, the High Court restrained the Union Government from releasing any fund or subsidy for this year's Haj pilgrimage. On September 7, it also rejected the plea for vacating the earlier order. The court said the Centre could proceed with all arrangements but it should not spend any amount for the Haj Committee for personal expenses including airfare. Assailing the judgment, the Centre said the Haj process had begun in May and massive arrangements were already put in place for Haj 2006-II. Invitation to tenders for wet lease of aircraft was issued in June. A commitment was obtained from the Saudi Arabian airlines for transporting 60,000 pilgrims. The Centre said it had signed an agreement with Saudi authorities for sending 1,47,000 pilgrims, 1,00,000 of them through the Haj Committee of India. The implementation of the High Court judgment would derail the Haj arrangements and the pilgrim quota would be in jeopardy. Also, it would have serious international ramifications for securing quota for Indians in future Haj programmes.
"Erroneous assumption"
The SLP said the High Court had proceeded on a wholly erroneous assumption that there was no power vested in the Union of India to make any financial arrangement. It failed to appreciate that financial assistance was being provided to Kailash Manasarovar yatra pilgrims also. Further, granting financial assistance was a matter of policy decision, which could not be interfered with.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2006, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|