STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER versus THE L.R.C.G. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 29-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l l S.C.R. 787 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE l.R.C.G. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3249 of2016) 
AUGUST29,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 25 and 26 - Public interest litigation - Seeking direction 
A 
B 
to compensate the Trusts and institutions owning the religious places 
C 
which got damaged/destroyed during the period of communal riots 
in the State - High Court directed the State Government to 
compensate - In appeal to Supreme Court, pursuant to an interim 
orde1; the State framed a Scheme regarding payment of ex gratia 
assistance to all religious places damaged/destroyed during the 
0 
riots - Held: Protection of property and places of worship is a11 
esse11tia/ part of secularism - The State is obliged to treat persons 
of all faiths and religions with equality - In the present case places 
of worship belo11ging to all religio11s have been damaged and 
affected - State is liable to repair or restore the places of worship 
damaged by the mob during the riot - The assistance rendered, as 
E 
per the Scheme of the State,for repairing/restoration of public places 
of worship would come within the guidelines of *Prafull Goradia 
and** Ard1bishop Raphael Cheenath cases. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The State is obliged under the Constitution to 
treat persons belonging to all faiths and religions with equality. 
The individual has his freedom to practice the religion as he 
desires and it is totally immaterial from the perspective of the 
State. The protection of property and places of worship is an 
essential part of secularism. The freedom of individual in this 
regard has to be respected and there has to be tolerance for 
each other. This principle has been accepted in the constitutional 
scheme keeping in view the concrete sustenance of national unity 
and integrity. In the present case, the places of worship belonging 
to all religions have been damaged and affected. [Paras 21 and 
22) [804-F-H) 
787 
F 
G 
H 
788 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 l S.C.R. 
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, 
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri 
Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282 : [1954] SCR 1005; 
SR. Bommai and others v. Union of India and others 
(1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994) 2 SCR 644; Dr. M Ismail 
Faniqui and others v. Union of India and others (1994) 
6 SCC 360 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR I - followed. 
2. In the present case, the State has framed the scheme 
regarding payment of ex gratia assistance to all religious places 
damaged/destroyed during the communal riots. On a close 
scrutiny of the scheme, it is noticed that the Government has 
fixed the maii:imum amount under the caption of ex gratia 
assistance and also conferred the power on the District Collector 
of the Districts where religious places arc situated to determine 
about the ownership or administration rights of religious places 
concerned. There arc certain conditions precedent for claiming 
the amount. The terms and conditions which arc incorporated in 
the scheme arc quite reasonable. While fixing the maximum limit, 
the Government has equated the same with houses which ha\'e 
been given the assistance. When the individual's grievances 
pertaining to property has been conferred similar assistance, the 
assistance remllered for repairing/restoration of public places of 
worship will come within the guidelines of * Prafull Goradia und 
** Arcllbisllop Raphael Cllee11ath S. V.D. cases. Therefore, the said 
scheme is accepted. (Para 40) (819-G; 820-A-C) 
*Prafull Goradia "· Union of India (2011) 2 SCC 568 
: [2011) 1 SCR 579; **Archbishop Raphael Cheenath 
S. V.D. v. State of Orissa and another (2009) 17 SCC 
87 and 90 - relied on. 
Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. v. Ananta Bhattacharjee 
and others (2004) 6 sec 213 - distinguished. 
G 
Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. 
H 
State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2009) 5 SCC 212 
: [2009) 6 SCR 439; Sa'?jay Gupta and others v. State 
of Uttar Pradesh and others (2015) 5 SCC 283 : [2014] 
8 SCR 992; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. 
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER v. THE l.R.C.G. 
AIR 2012 SC 100 : [2011] 16 SCR l; Rabindra Nath 
Ghosa/ v. University of Calcutta and others (2002) 7 
SCC 478 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 698; Common Cause, 
A Registered Society v. Unio11 of India and others (1999) 
6 SCC 667 : [1999] 3 SCR 1279; The Commissio11e1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.