State Responsibility for Religious Structures Damaged in Riots: A Landmark Judgment Explained

The case of State of Gujarat v. The Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (IRCG) is a significant ruling concerning the constitutional obligations of the State regarding the restoration and compensation for religious structures damaged during communal riots. The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the State was liable to provide financial assistance for the repair of religious places that suffered damage in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The case began as a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Gujarat High Court, seeking a directive for the State government to conduct a detailed survey of all religious structures, including mosques, dargahs, graveyards, khankahs, and other institutions that had been desecrated, damaged, or destroyed during the communal violence. The PIL also sought compensation and restoration of these structures at the expense of the State.

Background of the Case

The Gujarat riots of 2002 resulted in widespread violence, destruction, and loss of life. Among the damages caused, numerous religious structures belonging to various communities were attacked, raising concerns over the State’s responsibility in protecting and restoring such places.

The High Court of Gujarat issued several directives in response to the PIL, holding the State accountable for the damages and mandating compensation. The High Court ruled that the State government must provide financial assistance to the trusts and institutions responsible for managing the affected religious places and ensure their restoration to their original condition.

The Gujarat government challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that State funds should not be used for religious purposes as it would violate the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution.

Key Legal Issues Raised

Whether the State government can be directed to compensate for damages to religious places from public funds.
Whether such compensation violates Article 27 of the Constitution, which prohibits the use of tax proceeds for the promotion of any religion.
Whether the destruction of religious places amounted to a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26.
Whether the PIL was maintainable in seeking public law remedy for private properties.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Gujarat)

The State of Gujarat, represented by its legal counsel, raised several constitutional and legal objections to the High Court’s ruling. The key arguments were:

The use of public funds to restore religious structures violates Article 27, which prohibits compelling taxpayers to fund religious institutions.
The responsibility for maintaining religious structures lies with the respective religious institutions and not the State.
The right to practice religion does not include the right to demand State funding for religious places.
Public law remedies should not be used to compensate for private property damage.

Arguments by the Respondent (IRCG)

The respondents, including the Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat, contended that the State had failed in its duty to protect religious places during the riots. Their arguments included:

The State had a constitutional obligation to protect religious places and ensure communal harmony.
The failure of law enforcement resulted in the destruction of places of worship, making the State responsible for compensating the affected institutions.
Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) were violated when religious places were targeted and destroyed.
Compensation would not be an endorsement of any religion but rather a remedy for the failure of the State to protect religious freedoms.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, examined the constitutional principles surrounding the issue. The key findings and observations were:

1. The State Cannot Fund Religious Institutions

The Court ruled that Article 27 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the State from funding any particular religion or religious denomination. The Bench stated:

“The object of Article 27 is to maintain secularism, and hence, we must construe it from that angle. If a substantial part of the tax collected is utilized for promoting or maintaining any particular religion, it would be violative of Article 27.”

2. Limited Scope for Compensation

While holding that public funds cannot be used for religious purposes, the Court acknowledged the need to maintain communal harmony and provide relief for damages suffered due to large-scale riots.

The Supreme Court noted that in the past, the government had provided compensation for damage to homes and businesses affected by communal violence. In this case, the Court accepted a government-framed scheme that offered ex gratia assistance for restoring places of worship, subject to certain conditions.

3. Secularism and State Responsibility

The Court clarified that while secularism is a fundamental principle of the Constitution, it does not absolve the State from ensuring justice and fairness to all communities. The judgment emphasized:

“The obligation of the State to protect the rights of minorities is a facet of secularism and also covered by Article 14.”

4. Conditional Financial Assistance

The Supreme Court reviewed the Gujarat government’s newly framed scheme, which allowed for ex gratia assistance to religious places affected during the riots. The scheme specified:

Financial aid would be capped at Rs. 50,000 per religious structure.
Only legally recognized religious places were eligible (unauthorized structures were excluded).
FIRs documenting the damage were required for compensation claims.
Disbursement of funds would be overseen by the District Collector.

The Court found the scheme to be reasonable and held that compensation should be provided in accordance with these guidelines.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling set a precedent for future cases concerning State responsibility in communal riots. Its key implications include:

Strengthened the legal understanding of secularism by reinforcing the principle that the State cannot favor or fund religious activities.
Clarified that the government can provide relief for damage caused by communal violence, but such aid must be structured and non-discriminatory.
Emphasized that the protection of religious freedoms must be balanced with constitutional restrictions on State funding of religious institutions.

Conclusion

The case of State of Gujarat v. IRCG is a crucial judgment that addressed the interplay between secularism, religious freedoms, and State responsibility. While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional principle that public funds cannot be used to promote or maintain religious institutions, it also acknowledged the necessity of compensating damage caused due to State failure in maintaining law and order.

The judgment strikes a balance between protecting religious freedoms and maintaining the secular character of the Indian State. By endorsing a structured compensation scheme, the ruling ensures that affected communities receive relief without violating constitutional provisions.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Gujarat vs Islamic Relief Commi Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Prafulla C. Pant
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category