Published By: Sanstuti Nath
Last Updated: April 12, 2023, 13:29 IST
Lucknow bench of excessive Court upheld the Yogi Adityanath authorities’s resolution to pay honorarium to the performers on the programmes organised at temples (File picture of UP CM Yogi Adityanath /PTI)
The court docket’s order was handed on March 22 however was uploaded on its web site on Tuesday solely
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a PIL difficult the state authorities’s resolution allocating Rs 1 lakh to every district to maintain spiritual occasions throughout Navratri and Ram Navami festivals and pay honorarium to artistes.
Upholding the Yogi Adityanath authorities’s resolution to pay honorarium to the performers on the programmes organised at temples, the Lucknow bench of excessive Court has held that this doesn’t quantity to indulgence of the state in propagation of any faith or spiritual denomination.
In reality it’s a easy secular exercise of the state whereas it indulges in publicising the developmental work undertaken by the state, the court docket stated.
A bench of Justices D Okay Upadhyaya and O P Shukla dismissed the general public curiosity litigation (PIL) filed by Motilal Yadav difficult the state authorities’s March 10, 2023 resolution whereby it had allotted Rs 1 lakh to every district on the event of Ram Navami.
The court docket’s order was handed on March 22 however was uploaded on its web site on Tuesday solely.
In its order, the bench additionally noticed, “If the state spends some money out of the taxes collected by it from the citizens and appropriates some amount for providing some conveniences or facilities to any religious denomination, it will not be violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India.” “We have to always keep in mind that there exits a clear line of distinction between a secular activity and religious activity which may be undertaken by the State, like providing conveniences and facilities and indulgence of a State in maintenance and propagation of religion or religious denomination,” added the bench.
Saying that the petitioner had misunderstood the state authorities’s order, the bench noticed, “The Government order does not make any provision for payment of any amount to any person, be it a priest in a temple or anyone else associated with the activities of the temple; rather, the amount is to be paid to the performers or artisans who may be performing on such occasions.”
Read all of the Latest India News right here
(This story has not been edited by News18 employees and is revealed from a syndicated information company feed)
