PRAFULL GORADIA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 28-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 579 
PRAFULL GORADIA 
A 
· ~ 
v. 
' 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2007) 
JANUARY 28, 2011 
B 
[MARKANDEY kAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Haj Committee Act, 2002 - Constitutional validity of -
Challenge to - Writ petition - Plea of the petitioner that he is 
a Hindu but has to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose c 
proceeds go for the purpose of Haj pilgrimage, which is only 
done by Muslims - Held: Article 27 would be violated if a 
' ' 
substantial part of the entire income taxi central excise! 
customs duties/sales tax or any other tax collected in India, 
were to be utilized for promotion or maintenance of any D 
particular religion or religious denomination - It is nowhere 
mentioned in the writ petition as. to what percentage of any 
particular tax has been utilized for the purpose of the Haj 
pilgrimage - If only a relatively small part of any tax collected 
is utilized for providing some conveniences or facilities or E 
concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be 
violative of Article 27 of the Constitution - Thus, there is no 
violation of Article 27 as also Articles 14 and 15 of the 
;-· 
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 27, 14, 15 
and 32. 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlicle 27 - When attracted 
- Held: Article 27 is a provision in the Constitution, and not 
an ordinary statute - It is attracted when the statute by which 
the tax is levied specifically states that the proceeds of the 
tax would be utilized for a particular religion - Article 27 would G 
J:?e attracted even when the statute is a general statute, like 
the Income Tax Act or the Central Excise Act or the State 
Sa/es Tax Acts, which do not speciflJ for what purpose the 
579 
H 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A proceeds would be utilized provided that a substantial part of 
such proceeds are in fact utilized for a particular religion. 
.-,... 
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri 
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 (5) SCR 1005; Jagannath 
8 
Ramanuj Das vs. State of Orissa and Anr. 1954(5) SCR 
1046; T. M.A. Pae Foundation vs. State of Karnataka AIR 
2003 SC 355; Kesavanand Bharati vs. State of Kera/a 1973 
(4) SGC 225; Tansport ans Dock Workers Union vs. Mumbai 
Port Trust 2010(12) Scale 217; Government of Andhra 
Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi AIR 2008 SC 1640; Kai/as and 
C Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2011(1)19; Hinsa Virodhak 
Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamaat AIR 2008 SC 1892 
- referred to. 
James vs. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) AC 578; 
D British Coal Corporation vs. The King AIR 1935 P.C. 158; 
McCulloch vs. Maryland 17 U.S. 316(1819); Missourie vs. 
Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920); Bain Peanut Co. vs. Pinson, 
282 U.S. 499 (1931 ); Missourie, Kansas and Tennessee · 
Railroad vs. May 194 U.S. 267 (1904) ,_ referred to. 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
1954 (5) SCR 1005 
Referred to 
Para 6 
1954(5) SCR 1046 
Referred to 
Para 6 
F 
AIR 2003 SC 355 
Referred to 
Para 6 
1973 (4) sec 22s 
Referred to 
Para 8, 9 
(1936) AC 578 
Referred to 
Para 9 
G 
AIR 1935 P.C. 158 
Referrfi?d to 
Para 9 
17 us 316(1819) 
Referred to 
Para 9 
252 U.S. 416(1920) 
Referred to 
Para 9 
_l:L 
282 U.S. 499 (1.931) 
Referred to 
Para 17 
PRAFULL GORADIA v. UNION OF INDIA 
581 
194 U.S. 267 (1904) 
Referred to 
Para 17 
A 
2010(12) Scale 217 
Referred to 
Para 20 
AIR 2008 SC 1640 
Referred to 
Para 21 
JT 2011 (1) 19 
Referred to 
Para 24 
B 
AIR 2008 SC 1892 
Referred to 
Para 24 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No . 
...).;_ 
1 of 2007. 
M.N. Krishnamani, Alok Singh, Soumyajit Pani, Amit c 
Kumar, V.M. Srivastava, P.D. Sharma for the Petitioner. 
.. 
Ashok Bhan, Shweta Verma, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Sushma 
Suri for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
D 
~ 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution 
E 
had been initially filed challenging the constitutional validity of 
the Haj Committee Act 1959, but thereafter by an amendment 
+ 
application the Haj Committee Act of 2002 which replaced the 
1959 Act, has been challenged. 
F 
3. The ground for challenge is that the said Act is violative 
of Articles 14, 15, and 27 of the Constitution. The grievance of 
the petitioner is that he is a Hindu but he has to pay direct and 
indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds go for the purpose of 
the Haj pilgrimage, which is only done by Muslims. For the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.