Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang

Glancing Back, 2002 Until 2015, In A Nutshell

Teesta Setalvad 26 Aug 2015

 
2002 Gujarat and the desecration of religious and cultural shrines


Timeline: February - April 2002 Shrines destroyed across Gujarat

April 2002
National Human Rights Commission had visited the state of Gujarat. In its report dated April 1, 2002, it stated: “The Commission recommends that places of worship that have been destroyed be repaired expeditiously. Assistance should be provided, as appropriate, inter-alia by the State.”
The National Minority Commission also visited Gujarat and it has recommended to the state government to repair and restore all religious places of worships, which have been damaged and/or destroyed during the period of riots.

In June 20, 2002, the Government of Gujarat (GOG) makes this assertion to NHRC:
As indicated earlier, the State has not failed in fulfilling its constitutional obligation of protecting the lives, liberty and dignity of all its people. The State did its best with available resources to protect the lives of its people. For every incident of violence there have been innumerable instances of lives saved, property saved and protected by the State administration.”

State government circulars exclude shrines
The revenue department issued several resolutions, resolution dated 20.3.2002 bearing number RHL/232002/513/ (5)/S and resolution number RHL/232002/513/S-4 dated 5.3.2002. The Industries and Mines Department also vide resolution dated 16.3.2002 number RLF/102002/760/CH provided for financial assistance to the communally riots affected industries, shop owners and self-employed persons.

However, surprisingly, the government of Gujarat did not issue any scheme/resolution regarding the reconstruction and repairs of the religious places (mosques).

Petition by the Islamic Relief Committee filed in 2003 under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution with the legitimate grievance that, since the state government has not considered the said representation and has taken a peculiar stand (reparation for homes and businesses is valid but for cultural and religious sites is not) this amounts to a violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Besides the overall attitude and stance of the government is arbitrary and is therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Islamic Relief Committee (IRC), Petitioners: Pointed out to the petitioners that as per the available information, there were complaints about damage caused to approximately 535 religious places and that about 294 religious places there had already been repaired as on December 31, 2002. Subsequent meetings took place on January 7, 2004 and January 16, 2004. During the said meeting, the modalities for inspection of records were also discussed. On that date, there was a dispute. IRC clearly made out that the protection of places of worship was the duty of the government, which the government had failed to perform, and, therefore, it was advisable to undertake the repair of such religious places by the government immediately. The government of Gujarat through the Principal Secretary (Revenue) differed and insisted that the community should take responsibility for the repair work and the repairs to historic monuments would be looked after by the Archaeological Survey of India.

GOG (government of Gujarat) Position in the Gujarat HC
The govt of Gujarat denied there was discriminatory governance and stated that the state government had done all it could towards the restoration of normal human life from several points of view, leaving the task of restoration of religious places on the shoulders of organizations like the IRC. Moreover the GOG denied that there was failure, connivance, or negligence on the part of the State Government to control the situation during the riots, which broke out as a general reaction from the unfortunate incident of Sabarmati Express at Godhra. The state contested the argument that the provisions of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It was also denied that unless the damaged religious places of worship were repaired or restored and the concerned citizens were fully compensated, or that the Gujarat government failed to perform its constitutional obligation as alleged or otherwise.

The state government chose to rely on the provisions of Rules 45, 46, 53, 54, 55 and 57 of Chapter II of Bombay Police Manual and the provisions of Sections 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code have always been regarded by the State stating that it did best in bad circumstances, the poor availability of paramilitary forces etc and all available manpower was put to the best use according to the circumstances and the priority as the given situation demanded.

IRC (Petitioners) in Response to the GOG: When the GOG has admitted that approximately 535 places of worship had been damaged in the violence after February 27, 2002 (and, according to them through their survey which is disputed by the IRC, 294 places of worship had been repaired as on December 31, 2002) there is an admission by the state that 241 places of worship had remained unattended even according to the government of Gujarat.
 
Observations of the Court in its final judgement delivered on 8.2.2012 by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and JB Pardiwala in Special Civil Application No 3023/ 2003 with CA 6115/2004)
 
High Court of Gujarat (HC): The GOG contention that 294 places of worship had been repaired and rehabilitated, was not supported by any survey or report. The HC also observed that “the respondents have also failed to identify the repaired and rehabilitated places of worship and thus, the aforesaid contention is a false one. According to the direction given in this matter, although series of meetings were held between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2, all those meetings remained unfruitful since the respondents never made any serious efforts for coming out with a policy decision to provide financial assistance and/or compensation for damaged, desecrated and destroyed places of worship. From the affidavit of the State Government, it is apparent that the Government has not taken any policy decision To repair the damaged religious places or to reimburse the trusts or institutions of the religious places with the expenses incurred by them.”

Gujarat HC Observations on the Attitude of the State: “Para 5.3. The State has not framed Any policy for such restoration and/or repair by the Government itself since the State Government had never undertaken before the National Human Rights Commission to do so by itself.”
HC Observations on the Attitude of the State: “Para 6. Pursuant to order dated December 28, 2010 passed in this matter, the State Government had given further affidavit and stated that after considering all the aspects of the matter, it had taken the decision not to provide any financial aid to the religious places affected or in any way damaged in view of Godhra incident or post-Godhra incident.”

GOG’s defence: Even at the time of earthquake of 2001 although various places of worship were destroyed, by following the same policy decision, the state Government did not spend even a single farthing for restoration of places of worship but gave priority to the places of residence and places of business which, according to the state Government, is of prime importance.

Even at the time of earthquake of 2001 although various places of worship were destroyed, by following the same policy decision, the state Government did not spend even a single farthing for restoration of places of worship but gave priority to the places of residence and places of business which, according to the state Government, is of prime importance.
 
Gujarat High Court’s clear findings :

[[The Court makes a distinction between individual acts of vengeance and “….when due to incidents not arising out of any personal vengeance but solely based on religious beliefs or sentiments, persons belonging to two communities involve in riotous acts and cause destruction of property belonging to the innocent members of the other community”.

Gujarat High Court: “Para 20. In the latter type of cases, the State Government has, however, a constitutional obligation to take all possible steps to stop such illegal activities lest for its inaction or inadequate action, the life and the liberty of innocent citizens of this country are jeopardized in any way only because they belong to one of the communities of the persons involved in the riot.”

“Para 21. A conjoined reading of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India leaves no doubt that a citizen has, subject to the restrictions contained therein, a right to lead a meaningful life based on his faith on any religion and also the right to practise, profess and propagate any religion. He has also the freedom to manage religious affairs and maintain places of worship of his choice. Those Articles have found place in Chapter III of the Constitution enumerating the fundamental rights of a citizen.”



 

Part II


Gujarat High Court, 2012 :
State has a duty to protect Fundamental Rights of Freedom of Faith and Worship
Para 22. Thus, the State has a duty to protect those fundamental rights of the citizens conferred by the abovementioned Articles and if by any inaction or inadequate action, which is nothing but inaction, a person suffers for no fault on his part resulting in injury to his life and property, he can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate remedy.

Para 23. If in the above situation, huge numbers of persons have suffered injury for such inaction of the state government but they are unable to come to Court for various reasonable grounds, a public-spirited person can surely espouse their cause and pray before this Court for appropriate remedy.
Further

“Para 33. After taking into consideration the enormity of the situation where more than 500 religious places of worship of only one community have been destructed, even if we do not take into consideration the number of such destructed places belonging to other community, the State Government cannot shirk its responsibility by asserting that it had no negligence or inaction in protecting the life and the property of the citizen. According to the affidavit filed by the State, the most of the above places of worship have been repaired and thus, the present application has lost its significance.

Absence of adequate preventive action by State in 2002
Para 34: If the State Government had disclosed the number of place of worship of the other community destroyed during the riot in its affidavit, we could comprehend in a better way the vastness of the damage arising out of the incident. For the reason best known to the State, it has not disclosed such number. However, the facts remain that the anarchy continued unabated for days. When according to the State, the riot broke out as a general reaction from the unfortunate incident of Sabarmati Express at Godhra as disclosed in its affidavit, such fact should have been known to the police intelligence and they should have taken appropriate preventive action well in advance.

Failure Of Governance, Home Department, Police And Intelligence in 2002
Para 35. Failure on the part of the police intelligence to gather such general reaction in time and to take appropriate timely action definitely comes within the expression “negligence of the State” even if we for the sake of argument accept the defence of the State that the cause of riot was the “general reaction from the incident of Sabarmati Express”. Similarly, the fact that the riot continued for several days itself suggests lack of appropriate action or adequate action, if not inaction, on the part of the State in handling the situation.

Deliberate design by GOG in not placing NHRC report before the State Assembly
Para 36. Moreover, the fact that the annual report of National Human Rights Commissio on this serious incident of violation of human right has not been placed before State Legislative Assembly for discussion is not in dispute. Such inaction is a grave defiance on the part of the State Government of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 which is couched in mandatory form. The State Government has not given any explanation in its affidavits as to why the said report was not placed in the State Legislative Assembly in spite of the fact that the same was received at least in the early part of the year 2005.

Inadequate efforts by the State to handle the violence
Para 37. Once we hold that there was inadequate endeavour on the part of the State Government in effectively handling the situation resulting in destruction of more than 500 places of religious worship throughout the State belonging only to the one religious community, we are left with no other alternative, but to conclude that it is the duty of the State Government to restore all those religious places, irrespective of the religion, to its original position as it existed at the time of destruction. If those are already restored, the State Government should compensate the persons in charge of those places of worship by reimbursing the amount already spent by them.

Can the courts rule on government policy when it comes to protecting the religious rights of minorities?
Yes, says the Gujarat High Court
Para 41: It appears from the affidavit used by the State Government that it has already taken a decision to restore the places of residence and the business, which were destroyed during the period of communal riot. Such fact indicates that the State Government has virtually accepted its liability to compensate the affected persons for its failure to protect the residence and the place of business. The aforesaid failure to protect the right of the citizens under Article 21 having prompted the State Government to take decision to compensate the citizens whose fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has been impeded, there is no reason why the same failure to protect the right of citizens to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion as also the freedom to manage religious affairs as protected by Articles 25 and 26 will not enable the persons who are in charge of the religious places including those of worship to get compensation for its restoration.”

The Court makes a distinction between individual acts of vengeance and “….when due to incidents not arising out of any personal vengeance but solely based on religious beliefs or sentiments, persons belonging to two communities involve in riotous acts and cause destruction of property belonging to the innocent members of the other community.

Preposterous attitude of the government of Gujarat (GOG)
Para 43: In spite of the fact that the above rights are protected as fundamental rights in the Constitution of India, it is preposterous to suggest that the State Government, in spite of its failure to protect such rights, is lawfully entitled to take a policy decision only to restore the places of residence and the business destroyed in the riot but not the religious places including those of worship which are also protected in the same way with that of the place of residence and the place of business.”

Para 44: The above policy rather would give a wrong signal to the citizens that for the protection of the religious places including those of worship from the attack of the ruffians, they should take up arms in their own hand because in the event of destruction of those places, no financial help would come from the Government. The above policy will also encourage the religious bigots to destroy the religious and other places of worship of the economically weaker section of the other community for the purpose of establishing their superiority over the others being well conscious that the economically weaker community will not be able to reconstruct the selfsame structure in future from their own resources. The mere fact that the damaged property has already been restored at the cost of the person wronged is of no consequence on the fate of this writ-application because there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right… (The High Court then quotes from other judgements) Similarly, the policy decision taken in tackling an incident of earthquake, which is an act of God, cannot be applied in handling a situation arising out of the culpable inaction, inadequate action or negligence on the part of the State Government in protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by our Constitution.”

GOG avoiding Constitutional responsibility
Para 45: In our opinion, the above policy of the State Government taken in defence is one of evading the constitutional responsibility and will bring anarchy in the society, and thus, is detrimental to the establishment of the principles and the tenets of our Constitution.
Strictures by HC:

Para 54: We are unable to accept the said decision as a precedent in support of a proposition of law that the policy decisions of the State not to give compensation to the victimized religious places including those of worship by restricting the compensation only to the places of business and residences involved in the riot was not violative of the fundamental right to maintain and run the religious and other places of worship and to protect from being attacked by people of different community.”

Inability and negligence of the State caused destruction: Gujarat HC
Para 56: On consideration of the entire materials on record we, therefore, hold that for the inability or negligence on the part of the State Administration, the religious and other places of worships in this State having been destroyed during the riot of the year 2002 mentioned above, the policy adopted by the State Government, not to spend any money from public exchequer for the restoration of the religious places which were destructed during the said period, but restricting the compensation only to the places of residence and the business, is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

GOG explanations on thwarting statutory body like the NHRC inadequate: Gujarat HC
“Para 57. We further find that no explanation has been given by the State Government for not placing the annual and other reports given by the National Human Rights Commission on the incident before the State Legislative Assembly till today in spite of receiving the same in the early part of the year 2005 and such grave lapse on the part of the State Government amounts to clear violation of Section 20 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Direct compensation for religious places destroyed : Gujarat HC
“Para 58. We, accordingly, pass direction upon the State Government to give compensation in favour of the persons in charge of all the religious places including those of worship, which were damaged during the communal riot of the year 2002 for restoration to the original position, as those existed on the date of destruction.”

Reimburse costs of repair, appoint principal judges of districts to assist process: Gujarat HC
“Para 59. We find that during the long pendency of this litigation, many of those places of worship have been repaired. Nevertheless, the persons in charge of those places would be entitled to get reimbursement of the amount spent for restoration of those places by production of evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the above purpose, as there is no waiver of fundamental right. We, however, make it clear that if at the time of repair, further additional construction has been made in excess of the one existed at the time of damage, for such additional construction, no amount should be payable by the State Government.”

“Para 60. For implementation of our order, we appoint all the Principal District Judges of the various districts in this State and in the area under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court as the Special Officers for deciding the amount of compensation for the restoration of those religious and places of worship situated within the territorial limit of their respective court.”

“Para 61. The aggrieved persons should lodge their respective claim with those Special Officers within two months from today supported by the documentary evidence they propose to rely in support of their claim of damages. It is needless to mention that they will be also be entitled to give oral evidence to prove the exact position of the structure as it stood at the time of causing damage. The State Government will also be entitled to give written statement and oral and documentary evidence in support of its defence. Such written statement must be filed within one month from the service of the claim-application. The learned Special Officers on consideration of the entire materials on record will decide the matters and fix the amount of disbursement, if proved to have been incurred by them. In the cases where the religious places including those of worship are still lying in un-repaired condition or partly repaired condition, the learned Special Officer will pass not only the order of payment of the amount already spent by them for such repair, but also pass necessary order for repair or the balance amount of repair, as the case may be, to be made by the State Government.”
 

Glancing Back, 2002 Until 2015, In A Nutshell


 
2002 Gujarat and the desecration of religious and cultural shrines


Timeline: February - April 2002 Shrines destroyed across Gujarat

April 2002
National Human Rights Commission had visited the state of Gujarat. In its report dated April 1, 2002, it stated: “The Commission recommends that places of worship that have been destroyed be repaired expeditiously. Assistance should be provided, as appropriate, inter-alia by the State.”
The National Minority Commission also visited Gujarat and it has recommended to the state government to repair and restore all religious places of worships, which have been damaged and/or destroyed during the period of riots.

In June 20, 2002, the Government of Gujarat (GOG) makes this assertion to NHRC:
As indicated earlier, the State has not failed in fulfilling its constitutional obligation of protecting the lives, liberty and dignity of all its people. The State did its best with available resources to protect the lives of its people. For every incident of violence there have been innumerable instances of lives saved, property saved and protected by the State administration.”

State government circulars exclude shrines
The revenue department issued several resolutions, resolution dated 20.3.2002 bearing number RHL/232002/513/ (5)/S and resolution number RHL/232002/513/S-4 dated 5.3.2002. The Industries and Mines Department also vide resolution dated 16.3.2002 number RLF/102002/760/CH provided for financial assistance to the communally riots affected industries, shop owners and self-employed persons.

However, surprisingly, the government of Gujarat did not issue any scheme/resolution regarding the reconstruction and repairs of the religious places (mosques).

Petition by the Islamic Relief Committee filed in 2003 under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution with the legitimate grievance that, since the state government has not considered the said representation and has taken a peculiar stand (reparation for homes and businesses is valid but for cultural and religious sites is not) this amounts to a violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Besides the overall attitude and stance of the government is arbitrary and is therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Islamic Relief Committee (IRC), Petitioners: Pointed out to the petitioners that as per the available information, there were complaints about damage caused to approximately 535 religious places and that about 294 religious places there had already been repaired as on December 31, 2002. Subsequent meetings took place on January 7, 2004 and January 16, 2004. During the said meeting, the modalities for inspection of records were also discussed. On that date, there was a dispute. IRC clearly made out that the protection of places of worship was the duty of the government, which the government had failed to perform, and, therefore, it was advisable to undertake the repair of such religious places by the government immediately. The government of Gujarat through the Principal Secretary (Revenue) differed and insisted that the community should take responsibility for the repair work and the repairs to historic monuments would be looked after by the Archaeological Survey of India.

GOG (government of Gujarat) Position in the Gujarat HC
The govt of Gujarat denied there was discriminatory governance and stated that the state government had done all it could towards the restoration of normal human life from several points of view, leaving the task of restoration of religious places on the shoulders of organizations like the IRC. Moreover the GOG denied that there was failure, connivance, or negligence on the part of the State Government to control the situation during the riots, which broke out as a general reaction from the unfortunate incident of Sabarmati Express at Godhra. The state contested the argument that the provisions of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It was also denied that unless the damaged religious places of worship were repaired or restored and the concerned citizens were fully compensated, or that the Gujarat government failed to perform its constitutional obligation as alleged or otherwise.

The state government chose to rely on the provisions of Rules 45, 46, 53, 54, 55 and 57 of Chapter II of Bombay Police Manual and the provisions of Sections 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code have always been regarded by the State stating that it did best in bad circumstances, the poor availability of paramilitary forces etc and all available manpower was put to the best use according to the circumstances and the priority as the given situation demanded.

IRC (Petitioners) in Response to the GOG: When the GOG has admitted that approximately 535 places of worship had been damaged in the violence after February 27, 2002 (and, according to them through their survey which is disputed by the IRC, 294 places of worship had been repaired as on December 31, 2002) there is an admission by the state that 241 places of worship had remained unattended even according to the government of Gujarat.
 
Observations of the Court in its final judgement delivered on 8.2.2012 by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and JB Pardiwala in Special Civil Application No 3023/ 2003 with CA 6115/2004)
 
High Court of Gujarat (HC): The GOG contention that 294 places of worship had been repaired and rehabilitated, was not supported by any survey or report. The HC also observed that “the respondents have also failed to identify the repaired and rehabilitated places of worship and thus, the aforesaid contention is a false one. According to the direction given in this matter, although series of meetings were held between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2, all those meetings remained unfruitful since the respondents never made any serious efforts for coming out with a policy decision to provide financial assistance and/or compensation for damaged, desecrated and destroyed places of worship. From the affidavit of the State Government, it is apparent that the Government has not taken any policy decision To repair the damaged religious places or to reimburse the trusts or institutions of the religious places with the expenses incurred by them.”

Gujarat HC Observations on the Attitude of the State: “Para 5.3. The State has not framed Any policy for such restoration and/or repair by the Government itself since the State Government had never undertaken before the National Human Rights Commission to do so by itself.”
HC Observations on the Attitude of the State: “Para 6. Pursuant to order dated December 28, 2010 passed in this matter, the State Government had given further affidavit and stated that after considering all the aspects of the matter, it had taken the decision not to provide any financial aid to the religious places affected or in any way damaged in view of Godhra incident or post-Godhra incident.”

GOG’s defence: Even at the time of earthquake of 2001 although various places of worship were destroyed, by following the same policy decision, the state Government did not spend even a single farthing for restoration of places of worship but gave priority to the places of residence and places of business which, according to the state Government, is of prime importance.

Even at the time of earthquake of 2001 although various places of worship were destroyed, by following the same policy decision, the state Government did not spend even a single farthing for restoration of places of worship but gave priority to the places of residence and places of business which, according to the state Government, is of prime importance.
 
Gujarat High Court’s clear findings :

[[The Court makes a distinction between individual acts of vengeance and “….when due to incidents not arising out of any personal vengeance but solely based on religious beliefs or sentiments, persons belonging to two communities involve in riotous acts and cause destruction of property belonging to the innocent members of the other community”.

Gujarat High Court: “Para 20. In the latter type of cases, the State Government has, however, a constitutional obligation to take all possible steps to stop such illegal activities lest for its inaction or inadequate action, the life and the liberty of innocent citizens of this country are jeopardized in any way only because they belong to one of the communities of the persons involved in the riot.”

“Para 21. A conjoined reading of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India leaves no doubt that a citizen has, subject to the restrictions contained therein, a right to lead a meaningful life based on his faith on any religion and also the right to practise, profess and propagate any religion. He has also the freedom to manage religious affairs and maintain places of worship of his choice. Those Articles have found place in Chapter III of the Constitution enumerating the fundamental rights of a citizen.”



 

Part II


Gujarat High Court, 2012 :
State has a duty to protect Fundamental Rights of Freedom of Faith and Worship
Para 22. Thus, the State has a duty to protect those fundamental rights of the citizens conferred by the abovementioned Articles and if by any inaction or inadequate action, which is nothing but inaction, a person suffers for no fault on his part resulting in injury to his life and property, he can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate remedy.

Para 23. If in the above situation, huge numbers of persons have suffered injury for such inaction of the state government but they are unable to come to Court for various reasonable grounds, a public-spirited person can surely espouse their cause and pray before this Court for appropriate remedy.
Further

“Para 33. After taking into consideration the enormity of the situation where more than 500 religious places of worship of only one community have been destructed, even if we do not take into consideration the number of such destructed places belonging to other community, the State Government cannot shirk its responsibility by asserting that it had no negligence or inaction in protecting the life and the property of the citizen. According to the affidavit filed by the State, the most of the above places of worship have been repaired and thus, the present application has lost its significance.

Absence of adequate preventive action by State in 2002
Para 34: If the State Government had disclosed the number of place of worship of the other community destroyed during the riot in its affidavit, we could comprehend in a better way the vastness of the damage arising out of the incident. For the reason best known to the State, it has not disclosed such number. However, the facts remain that the anarchy continued unabated for days. When according to the State, the riot broke out as a general reaction from the unfortunate incident of Sabarmati Express at Godhra as disclosed in its affidavit, such fact should have been known to the police intelligence and they should have taken appropriate preventive action well in advance.

Failure Of Governance, Home Department, Police And Intelligence in 2002
Para 35. Failure on the part of the police intelligence to gather such general reaction in time and to take appropriate timely action definitely comes within the expression “negligence of the State” even if we for the sake of argument accept the defence of the State that the cause of riot was the “general reaction from the incident of Sabarmati Express”. Similarly, the fact that the riot continued for several days itself suggests lack of appropriate action or adequate action, if not inaction, on the part of the State in handling the situation.

Deliberate design by GOG in not placing NHRC report before the State Assembly
Para 36. Moreover, the fact that the annual report of National Human Rights Commissio on this serious incident of violation of human right has not been placed before State Legislative Assembly for discussion is not in dispute. Such inaction is a grave defiance on the part of the State Government of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 which is couched in mandatory form. The State Government has not given any explanation in its affidavits as to why the said report was not placed in the State Legislative Assembly in spite of the fact that the same was received at least in the early part of the year 2005.

Inadequate efforts by the State to handle the violence
Para 37. Once we hold that there was inadequate endeavour on the part of the State Government in effectively handling the situation resulting in destruction of more than 500 places of religious worship throughout the State belonging only to the one religious community, we are left with no other alternative, but to conclude that it is the duty of the State Government to restore all those religious places, irrespective of the religion, to its original position as it existed at the time of destruction. If those are already restored, the State Government should compensate the persons in charge of those places of worship by reimbursing the amount already spent by them.

Can the courts rule on government policy when it comes to protecting the religious rights of minorities?
Yes, says the Gujarat High Court
Para 41: It appears from the affidavit used by the State Government that it has already taken a decision to restore the places of residence and the business, which were destroyed during the period of communal riot. Such fact indicates that the State Government has virtually accepted its liability to compensate the affected persons for its failure to protect the residence and the place of business. The aforesaid failure to protect the right of the citizens under Article 21 having prompted the State Government to take decision to compensate the citizens whose fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has been impeded, there is no reason why the same failure to protect the right of citizens to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion as also the freedom to manage religious affairs as protected by Articles 25 and 26 will not enable the persons who are in charge of the religious places including those of worship to get compensation for its restoration.”

The Court makes a distinction between individual acts of vengeance and “….when due to incidents not arising out of any personal vengeance but solely based on religious beliefs or sentiments, persons belonging to two communities involve in riotous acts and cause destruction of property belonging to the innocent members of the other community.

Preposterous attitude of the government of Gujarat (GOG)
Para 43: In spite of the fact that the above rights are protected as fundamental rights in the Constitution of India, it is preposterous to suggest that the State Government, in spite of its failure to protect such rights, is lawfully entitled to take a policy decision only to restore the places of residence and the business destroyed in the riot but not the religious places including those of worship which are also protected in the same way with that of the place of residence and the place of business.”

Para 44: The above policy rather would give a wrong signal to the citizens that for the protection of the religious places including those of worship from the attack of the ruffians, they should take up arms in their own hand because in the event of destruction of those places, no financial help would come from the Government. The above policy will also encourage the religious bigots to destroy the religious and other places of worship of the economically weaker section of the other community for the purpose of establishing their superiority over the others being well conscious that the economically weaker community will not be able to reconstruct the selfsame structure in future from their own resources. The mere fact that the damaged property has already been restored at the cost of the person wronged is of no consequence on the fate of this writ-application because there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right… (The High Court then quotes from other judgements) Similarly, the policy decision taken in tackling an incident of earthquake, which is an act of God, cannot be applied in handling a situation arising out of the culpable inaction, inadequate action or negligence on the part of the State Government in protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by our Constitution.”

GOG avoiding Constitutional responsibility
Para 45: In our opinion, the above policy of the State Government taken in defence is one of evading the constitutional responsibility and will bring anarchy in the society, and thus, is detrimental to the establishment of the principles and the tenets of our Constitution.
Strictures by HC:

Para 54: We are unable to accept the said decision as a precedent in support of a proposition of law that the policy decisions of the State not to give compensation to the victimized religious places including those of worship by restricting the compensation only to the places of business and residences involved in the riot was not violative of the fundamental right to maintain and run the religious and other places of worship and to protect from being attacked by people of different community.”

Inability and negligence of the State caused destruction: Gujarat HC
Para 56: On consideration of the entire materials on record we, therefore, hold that for the inability or negligence on the part of the State Administration, the religious and other places of worships in this State having been destroyed during the riot of the year 2002 mentioned above, the policy adopted by the State Government, not to spend any money from public exchequer for the restoration of the religious places which were destructed during the said period, but restricting the compensation only to the places of residence and the business, is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

GOG explanations on thwarting statutory body like the NHRC inadequate: Gujarat HC
“Para 57. We further find that no explanation has been given by the State Government for not placing the annual and other reports given by the National Human Rights Commission on the incident before the State Legislative Assembly till today in spite of receiving the same in the early part of the year 2005 and such grave lapse on the part of the State Government amounts to clear violation of Section 20 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Direct compensation for religious places destroyed : Gujarat HC
“Para 58. We, accordingly, pass direction upon the State Government to give compensation in favour of the persons in charge of all the religious places including those of worship, which were damaged during the communal riot of the year 2002 for restoration to the original position, as those existed on the date of destruction.”

Reimburse costs of repair, appoint principal judges of districts to assist process: Gujarat HC
“Para 59. We find that during the long pendency of this litigation, many of those places of worship have been repaired. Nevertheless, the persons in charge of those places would be entitled to get reimbursement of the amount spent for restoration of those places by production of evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the above purpose, as there is no waiver of fundamental right. We, however, make it clear that if at the time of repair, further additional construction has been made in excess of the one existed at the time of damage, for such additional construction, no amount should be payable by the State Government.”

“Para 60. For implementation of our order, we appoint all the Principal District Judges of the various districts in this State and in the area under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court as the Special Officers for deciding the amount of compensation for the restoration of those religious and places of worship situated within the territorial limit of their respective court.”

“Para 61. The aggrieved persons should lodge their respective claim with those Special Officers within two months from today supported by the documentary evidence they propose to rely in support of their claim of damages. It is needless to mention that they will be also be entitled to give oral evidence to prove the exact position of the structure as it stood at the time of causing damage. The State Government will also be entitled to give written statement and oral and documentary evidence in support of its defence. Such written statement must be filed within one month from the service of the claim-application. The learned Special Officers on consideration of the entire materials on record will decide the matters and fix the amount of disbursement, if proved to have been incurred by them. In the cases where the religious places including those of worship are still lying in un-repaired condition or partly repaired condition, the learned Special Officer will pass not only the order of payment of the amount already spent by them for such repair, but also pass necessary order for repair or the balance amount of repair, as the case may be, to be made by the State Government.”
 

Related Articles

News in Brief

Monday

13

Jan

Nationwide

Saturday

04

Jan

Karve Statue, Kothrud, Pune

Theme

Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura
summer

Summer Culture

Our first summer culture bouquet features fiction from Syria and Iraq and poetry and art from Palestine.
khoj

Teaching Without Prejudice

Report of the CABE Committee on 'Regulatory Mechanisms for Textbooks and Parallel Textbooks Taught in Schools Outside the Government System

Campaigns

Monday

13

Jan

Nationwide

Saturday

04

Jan

Karve Statue, Kothrud, Pune

Videos

Health

Lockdown hit Naxalbari community faces severe food crisis

In this exclusive video for SabrangIndia, watch how the marginalised and daily wage workers have lost jobs, facing a severe food crisis and depending on daily relief, set up by community kitchens in Naxalbari. The lockdown has brought out several painful narratives of some of the most needy communities, that are not only battling hunger but struggling to maintain their dignity. Who is responsible for this crisis?

Health

Lockdown hit Naxalbari community faces severe food crisis

In this exclusive video for SabrangIndia, watch how the marginalised and daily wage workers have lost jobs, facing a severe food crisis and depending on daily relief, set up by community kitchens in Naxalbari. The lockdown has brought out several painful narratives of some of the most needy communities, that are not only battling hunger but struggling to maintain their dignity. Who is responsible for this crisis?

Podcasts

play-button
Podcast:PB Sawant

Inefficient cropping patterns have impacted groundwater reserves, that have provided for roughly 84% of the irrigated $

Analysis

Delhi HC

Hate Speech and Delhi Pogrom 2020

A spate of provocative speeches, that amount to hate speech in law and should be prosecuted allowed blood letting to spill on the streets of north east Delhi in February-March 2020
hashimpura

Hashimpura Massacre

The Lemmings of Hashimpura
summer

Summer Culture

Our first summer culture bouquet features fiction from Syria and Iraq and poetry and art from Palestine.
khoj

Teaching Without Prejudice

Report of the CABE Committee on 'Regulatory Mechanisms for Textbooks and Parallel Textbooks Taught in Schools Outside the Government System

Archives