BSK 174. Toleransi Hakim-Hakim India

Bismillah.

Assalamualaikum.

Mungkin mereka-mereka yang berada dalam bidang yang sama boleh mengambil iktibar denagn laporan dibawah ini. Mari kita baca bersama-sama.

India defends Haj subsidy for Muslims
The Hindu

NEW DELHI, Jan 29: India's Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act, which provides for grant of a government subsidy for pilgrimage every year.

A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the contention by Prafull Goradia, former BJP Rajya Sabha member, who said such a grant violated Articles 14 and 15 and in particular Article 27 (freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion).

“Severe drain”

The petitioner said he was a Hindu but he had to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds went for the Haj pilgrimage, which was done only by Muslims. For the Haj, “the Indian government grants a subsidy in air fare,” which it could not do. An estimated Rs. 280 crore annually incurred by the government for the pilgrimage was not only unconstitutional but also a severe drain on the taxpayers' money.

Rejecting this argument, the Bench said India was a country of great diversity and “if we wish to keep our country united, we need to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It is due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution, which is secular in character and which caters for the tremendous diversity in our country.”

Secular state

The Bench said: “When India became independent in 1947 there were partition riots in many parts of the subcontinent, and a large number of people were killed, injured and displaced. Religious passions were inflamed at that time, and when passions are inflamed it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of our founding fathers that under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru they kept a cool head and decided to declare India a secular country instead of a Hindu country. This was a very difficult decision at that time because Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state and hence there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and our other leaders to declare [India] a Hindu state. It is their greatness that they resisted this pressure and kept a cool head and rightly declared India to be a secular state. This is why despite all its tremendous diversity India is still united. In this subcontinent, with all its tremendous diversity (because 92 per cent of the people living in the subcontinent are descendants of immigrants), the only policy which can work and provide for stability and progress is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, sects, denominations, etc.”

On the petitioner's contention that Article 27 was violated, the court said: “If only a relatively small part of any tax collected is utilised for providing some conveniences or facilities or concessions to any religious denomination, that would not be violative of Article 27. It is only when a substantial part of the tax is utilised for any particular religion would Article 27 be violated.”

Facilities for all Indians

The Bench pointed out that the State government incurred some expenditure for the Kumbh Mela and the Centre, for facilitating Indian citizens to go on pilgrimage to Mansarover, etc. Similarly some State governments provided facilities to Hindus and Sikhs to visit temples and gurdwaras in Pakistan.

“These are very small expenditures in proportion to the entire tax collected. Thus there is no discrimination. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act.”
[Harakah Daily]

Semasa India mendapat kemerdekaan, pemimpin-pemimpin mereka memilih untuk India menjadi negara sekular, walaupun India bermajoritikan rakyat beragama Hindu.

Pada masa itu mereka telah membuat andaian bahawa sistem sekular yang dapat mempastikan keadilan dimasa akan datang. Keadilan kepada pelbagai lapisan masyarakat.  

Hingga sekarang mereka-mereka ini berpegang betul dengan apa yang diperuntukkan dalam undang-undang mereka.

Dalam kes diatas, hakim-hakim yang memberikan keputusan, pada pendapat kami bukan beragama Islam. Tetapi mereka masih berpegang dengan akta yang diperuntukkan. Memberikan keputusan yang memihak kepada penganut agama Islam.

Adakah mereka boleh memutuskan keputusan yang sebaliknya? Atau memutar-belit akta-akta agar memihak kepada penganut Hindu yang membuat petition? Bolehkan!

Adakah pengamal undang-undang di negara kita benar-benar berpegang kepada peruntukkan didalam undang-undang negara kita?

Seperti kes DUN Perak?

Fikir-fikirkan.

So….. Ya Allah ya Tuhan kami, tunjukkanlah kepada kami perkara yang benar itu adalah benar dan pandulah kami supaya mengikutinya, dan tunjukkanlah kepada kami perkara yang batil itu adalah batil supaya kami meninggalkannya. Amin.

Wassalam.

Posted in: Bicara Semasa