SC declines PIL seeking Bharat Ratna for Mahatma Gandhi; says he is beyond formal recognition
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking conferment of 'Bharat Ratna' on Mahatma Gandhi saying that people hold the father of the nation in "high esteem", beyond any formal recognition.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, however asked petitioner Anil Dutta Sharma to give representation to the central government in this regard.
"Mahatma Gandhi is the father of nation and people hold him in high esteem, beyond any formal recognition," the bench said.
The issue of directing the government to award Bharat Ratna to the father of the nation was not a "justiciable issue", it said. The bench however said that it agreed with the sentiments of the petitioner for granting official decoration to Mahatma Gandhi.
Disposing of the petition, the top court said, "We will allow you to give a representation to the Centre in this regard."
Sharma, in his PIL, had sought a direction to the government to give "official decoration" to Mahatma Gandhi to honour him for the contribution to the nation.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Only allegation-free individuals to handle Hajj pilgrims: Delhi High Court
New Delhi: In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court stated that individuals with no allegations of deceit should be entrusted with the responsibility of handling pilgrims keeping in mind the sanctity of Hajj.
Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted the provision in the Haj Policy, granting the Central Government authority to bar Hajj Group Organizers (HGOs) against whom complaints of misconduct have been lodged, particularly concerning their dealings with pilgrims.
The court's stance came in response to a plea filed by Al Islam Tour Corporation challenging the Centre's decision to blacklist it for ten years, starting from Hajj 2021. This decision followed a complaint from a Hajj pilgrim, accusing the corporation of defrauding him in 2013 by accepting Rs. 13 lakhs for pilgrimage expenses but failing to refund the money upon cancellation.
Dismissing the plea, the court noted that the petitioner wasn't registered as an HGO for Hajj 2018 and thus shouldn't have been involved in any Hajj-related activities without proper registration.
The court underscored the significance of the Hajj pilgrimage for many Indians, often being a once-in-a-lifetime journey for the less privileged who may spend their entire savings on it.
Furthermore, the court said that while the majority of Indian pilgrims obtain permission from the Hajj Committee, some experienced private tour operators are also authorised to facilitate the pilgrimage.
Considering the objectives of the Hajj Policy and the seriousness of the complaint against the petitioner, the court deemed the imposed penalty justified and saw no need for modification.
