# Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-22
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 210 of 2023
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/moti-lal-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49832
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 27 - Freedom
as to payment of taxes for promotion of
any particular religion - The petitioner
sought the quashing of the Government
Order/Letter dated 10.03.2023. By the
said Government Order/Letter, the State
Government
issued
directions
to
celebrate, between 29th and 30th March
2023, the occasions of Ashtami and Shri
Ram
Navami.
Held:
The
impugned
Government
Order/Letter
does
not
contain any provision for payment to
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
priests in a temple or to anyone else
associated with temple activities. Rather,
the
amount
is
to
be
paid
to
the
performers/artists
who
may
be
performing
on
such
occasions.
The
Government Order does not provide for
any
state
activity
relating
to
the
maintenance
or
propagation
of
any
religion or religious denomination. Under
Article 27 of the Constitution of India,
what is not permissible is the specific
apportionment of tax proceeds for the
payment
of
expenses
promoting
or
maintaining any particular religion or
religious
denomination.
However,
the
payment of honorarium by the State to
artists/performers at programs, even if
organized at temple sites or fairs during
Shri Ram Navami, does not constitute
state involvement in the propagation of
any religion or religious denomination. It
is simply a secular activity of the State,
which may also involve publicizing the
developmental works undertaken by the
State. (Para 22, 23)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Moti Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
is duty bound to discharge his duties with
utmost honesty and sincerity and any
infraction leading to misappropriation of
funds would amount to a very serious
misconduct as such an action may strike at
the root of Banking business and the faith
of the customers will be impaired. In the
present case, undoubtedly on two separate
occasions the petitioner was found to have
indulged in misappropriation of funds. In
the year 2005 after conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings he was found
guilty and punished and was categorically
asked not to repeat the same misconduct.
Despite the aforesaid punishment meted out
to him the petitioner again indulged in act
of misconduct and misappropriation of
funds in 2015 which has led to the
impugned punishment order. There is no
denial of the involvement of the petitioner
in both the above acts of misconduct.

21. The only defence taken by the
petitioner is that he was not aware of the
law. We have noticed that the petitioner is
employed in banking business since more
than one and half decades, and such
defence that he was not aware of the legal
principles and law is not believable nor is a
valid defence. In the present case, we have
noticed that the petitioner deliberately did
not credit the money received from the
customers in the books of account of the
Bank and it is only after complaint was
made by the customers that such amount
was refunded, which clearly indicates that
his intention was not bonafide but a
deliberate attempt to defraud the customers.
This observation is based upon the fact that
during
this
period
neither
had
he
voluntarily refunded the money to the
customers, nor had he informed any higher
official of the Bank about such incident in
case it was under any mistaken belief of
fact. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
punishment of compulsory retirement is
clearly not disproportionate or excessive
considering the repeated misconduct by the
petitioner.

22. In view of the above, this Court is
of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is in
consonance with the misconduct committed
by him and, hence, does not require any
interference by this Court. The petition is
bereft of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

P.I.L. No. 210 of 2023

Moti Lal Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 27 - Freedom
as to payment of taxes for promotion of
any particular religion - The petitioner
sought the quashing of the Government
Order/Letter dated 10.03.2023. By the
said Government Order/Letter, the State
Government
issued
directions
to
celebrate, between 29th and 30th March
2023, the occasions of Ashtami and Shri
Ram
Navami.
Held:
The
impugned
Government
Order/Letter
does
not
contain any provision for payment to
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
priests in a temple or to anyone else
associated with temple activities. Rather,
the
amount
is
to
be
paid
to
the
performers/artists
who
may
be
performing
on
such
occasions.
The
Government Order does not provide for
any
state
activity
relating
to
the
maintenance
or
propagation
of
any
religion or religious denomination. Under
Article 27 of the Constitution of India,
what is not permissible is the specific
apportionment of tax proceeds for the
payment
of
expenses
promoting
or
maintaining any particular religion or
religious
denomination.
However,
the
payment of honorarium by the State to
artists/performers at programs, even if
organized at temple sites or fairs during
Shri Ram Navami, does not constitute
state involvement in the propagation of
any religion or religious denomination. It
is simply a secular activity of the State,
which may also involve publicizing the
developmental works undertaken by the
State. (Para 22, 23)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1.
The
Commissioner,
Hindu
Religious
Endowments, Madras Vs Shri Lakshmindra
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC
282

2. Praful Goradia Vs U.O.I. , (2011) 2 SCC 568

3. St. of Guj. & anr. Vs Islamic Relief
Committee, Gujarat & ors., (2018) 13 SCC 687

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. This Public Interest Litigation
Petition has been filed by a practicing
lawyer of this Court praying for quashing
of a Government Order/Letter dated
10.03.2023
issued
by
the
Principal
Secretary of the State Government in the
department of Tourism which is addressed
to all the Divisional Commissioners and the
District Magistrates in the State of Uttar
Pradesh.

2. By the impugned Government
Order/Letter, the State Government has
issued certain directions to celebrate,
between 29th and 30th March, 2023, the
occasion of Ashtami and Shri Ram
Navami. The directions issued in the said
Government Order/Letter are as follows:-

(i) By taking a special drive,
participation of women and girls in the
programmes be ensured and functions
relating
to
chanting
of
Durga
Saptshati/Devi
Jagran/Devi
Gayan
be
organized.

(ii) On the occasion of Ashtami
and Shri Ram Navami, Akhand Ramayan
Path be organized at main Shakti Peeth
Temples to publicize human, social and
national values amongst the general public
and for the said purpose, committees be
constituted
at
District,
Tehsil
and
Development Block levels in each District.

(iii) The performers and Artists
shall be selected and chosen in every
district by a Committee to be chaired by the
District Magistrate in co-ordination with
Departments
of
Culture
and
Public
Information of the State. The Programmes
be organized commensurate to the glory of
Ma Durga and in such programmes, the
public representatives be invited while
simultaneously ensuring participation of
the people.

(iv) The programme is a State
Level programme and hence on this
occasion
through
the
Department
of
Information, hoardings be put along with
publicity in print media/social media about
the developmental works and development
of
basic
amenities
by
the
Tourism
4 All. Moti Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
Department of the State Government at
Shakti Peeths and Devi Temples.

(vi)
At
every
site
of
the
programme, the District Magistrate shall
ensure sanitation, drinking water, security,
lighting and laying of durries timely and
the
functions/
programmes
shall
be
organized
only
after
obtaining
No
Objection Certificates (NOC) from the
authorities at the appropriate level.

(v) Information of all such
programmes including address of the
temples, photographs, GPS location and
contact number of the Management of the
temples etc. shall be furnished to the
Department of Culture.

(vi) For the purposes of giving
honorarium to the Artists/ Performers in
such programmes, the Department of
Culture shall make available a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to
the District Tourist and Culture Council of
every district and rest of the arrangements
shall be made by the district administration
at its own level.

3. The reservation expressed by the
petitioner, who appears in person in this
Public Interest Litigation, is in relation to
the instructions contained in the impugned
Government
Order/Letter,
whereby
financial aid has been ordered to be
provided.

4. Heard the petitioner in person and
Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel representing the State
respondents.

5. It has been argued by the petitioner
that the State Government while issuing
impugned Government Order/Letter has
issued instructions to organize celebrations
of Shri Ram Navami in the temples and to
provide financial aid at Block, Tehsil and
District level. According to him, the said
Government Order/Letter further contains a
direction to the Pujaris of the temples to
perform religious practices in the garb of
reducing the negative energy in the Society.
The submission further is that on the one
hand, the impugned Order/letter provides
financial aid for performing religious
activities in the temples during Navratri,
however, on the other hand, the State has
not made any provision for Muslims during
holy month of Ramzan which, this year,
starts simultaneously with start of Shri Ram
Navami and accordingly, in the views of
the petitioner, such action on the part of the
State is discriminatory. Shri Moti Lal
Yadav, the petitioner in person further
argues that Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the
Constitution of India protect every citizen
of India from being compelled to pay any
tax and prohibits State in participation of
any religious authority. It has also been
argued that Part - III and Part - IV of the
Constitution of India cast a duty on the
State Government to provide protection to
every citizen while he follows/ propagates
his religion. However, the Constitution
does not make any provision for the State
to propagate any particular religious
activity.

6. Shri Yadav has also submitted that
the impugned Government Order/Letter is
beyond
the
administrative
authority/functions of the State in terms of
the provisions contained in List II and List
III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India and that the State cannot take shelter
in the 'residuary power' clause as the same
is available only with the Parliament and
not with the State Legislative.

7. It has been further argued that the
Parliament has consciously included the
word 'Secular' in the Preamble of the
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India and as such, as per the
Scheme of the Constitution of India, neither
the State Government nor the Central
Government can be permitted to propagate
any religious activity, however, protection
of religious activities of the people is moral
and constitutional obligation of the State.
The petitioner has further emphasized that
the impugned Government Order/Letter has
clearly
violated
Article
27
of
the
Constitution of India which enunciates
Right of Freedom as to payment of taxes
for promotion of any particular religion and
forbids the State from compelling any
person to pay any taxes, proceeds of which
are specially used in payment of expenses
for the promotion or maintenance of any
religion or religious denomination.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid
submissions and arguments made by the
petitioner, it has been urged that the
impugned Government Order/Letter being
violative of the Constitutional Scheme,
specifically Article 27 of the Constitution
of India deserves to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Sri Amitabh
Rai, learned Counsel representing the
State respondents has submitted that the
instant Public Interest Litigation is highly
misconceived for the reason that by
issuing
the
impugned
Government
Order/Letter, the State Government is not
seeking
to
propagate
any
religious
activity. His submission is that it is the
responsibility of the State to protect the
cultural ethos of the society and on
account of various cultural activities on
the occasion of festivals a large number
of tourists and devotees gather and
participate which ultimately augments the
State-revenue. It has also been stated by
Shri Rai that various cultural heritages
have been included in the list of Cultural
Heritage maintained by United Nations
Economic,
Social
and
Cultural
Organization (UNECSO) and such list
maintained by UNESCO contains Yoga,
chanting of Vedic Mantras, Durga Puja,
Kumbh
Mela,
Ramlila,
Sankirtana,
Garba, Buddhist Chanting and Kalbelia.
Shri Rai has further argued that making
arrangement of sanitation, drinking water,
security, light, sound and laying of
Durries at such sites do not amount to
propagation of religion. He has further
submitted
that
the
amount
of
Rs.1,00,000/- per district under the
impugned Government Order/Letter, is to
be paid not to the priests of the temples,
but to the Artists/Performers through
District Tourist and Culture Council.

10. In substance, submission of the
learned
State
Counsel
is
that
the
impugned Government Order has been
misread
and
misconstrued
by
the
petitioner as the same does not contain
any direction or instruction to promote
any religious activity or propagate any
religion. He, thus, submits that the instant
Public Interest Litigation is liable to be
dismissed at its threshold.

11. We have thoughtfully considered
the submissions made by the respective
parties.

12. Thrust of the argument of the
petitioner is based on the provisions
contained in Article 27 of the Constitution
of India which is extracted here-in-below:-

"27. Freedom as to payment of
taxes for promotion of any particular
religion. -- No person shall be compelled to
pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are
specifically appropriated in payment of
expenses for the promotion or maintenance
4 All. Moti Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
of any particular religion or religions
denomination."

13. The other argument raised by the
petitioner is that by issuing the impugned
Government Order/Letter, the State is
indulging in propagation of a particular
religion which in view of the Scheme of the
Constitution and the State being a Secular
State, is impermissible.

14. Article 27 of the Constitution of
India mandates that no person can be
compelled to pay any taxes which can be
utilized for payment of expenses for
promotion or maintenance of any particular
religion or religious denomination.

15. Article 27 of the Constitution of
India has been the subject matter of
consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of 'The Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282]'. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court comprising of Six Hon'ble Judges in
the aforesaid case has held that what is not
permissible under Article 27 of the
Constitution of India is the specific
apportionment of the proceeds of any tax in
payment of expenses for promotion or
maintenance of any particularly religion or
religious denomination. Hon'ble Supreme
Court
further
held
that
the
reason
underlying the provision is obvious and
that India being a secular State and there
being freedom of religion guaranteed by
the Constitution, both to the individuals and
to groups, it is against the policy of the
Constitution to pay out of public funds and
money for promotion or maintenance of
any
particular
religion
or
religious
denomination. Para - 50 of the judgment in
the case of The Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras (supra) is
relevant and is extracted here-in-below:-

"(50) In view of our decision on
this point, the other ground hardly
requires consideration. We will indicate,
however, very briefly our opinion on the
second point raised. The first contention,
which has been raised by Mr. Nambiar
in reference to article 27 of the
Constitution is that the word "taxes", as
used therein, is not confined to taxes
proper but is inclusive of all other
impositions like cesses, fees, etc. We do
not think it necessary to decide this point
in the present case, for in out opinion on
the facts of the present case, the
imposition, although it is a tax, does not
come within the purview of the latter
part of the article at all.

What is forbidden by the article
is the specific appropriation of the
proceeds of any tax in payment of
expenses
for
the
promotion
or
maintenance of any particular religion
or religious denomination. The reason
underlying this provision is obvious.
Ours being a secular State and there
being freedom of religion guaranteed by
the Constitution, both to individuals and
to groups, it is against the policy of the
Constitution to pay out of public funds
any money for the promotion or
maintenance of any particular religion
or religious denomination. But the object
of the contribution under section 76 of
the Madras Act is not the fostering or
preservation of the Hindu religion or any
denomination within it. The purpose is to
see that religious trusts and institutions,
wherever
they
exist,
are
properly
administered.
It
is
a
secular
administration
of
the
religious
institutions that the legislature seeks to
control and the object, as enunciated in
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Act, is to ensure that the endowments
attached to the religious institutions are
properly administered and their income
is duly appropriated for the purposes for
which they were founded or exist. There
is
no
question
of
favouring
any
particular
religion
or
religious
denomination in such cases. In our
opinion, article 27 of the Constitution is
not attracted to the facts of the present
case."

16. Examining the validity of
Section 76 of Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
(here-in-after referred to as the 'Act,
1951'), it has been observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said case that
Section 76 of the Act, 1951 was not the
fostering or preservation of the Hindu
Religion or any denomination; rather,
the purpose of enacting Section 76 of the
Act, 1951 was to see that Religious
Trusts and Institutions are properly
administered and that it is the Secular
Administration
of
the
religious
institutions that the Legislature sought to
control and object of the said provision
was to ensure the endowments and
religious
institutions
are
properly
administered and their income is duly
appropriated for the purpose for which
they exist.

(Emphasis supplied by Court)

17. We may notice that by enacting
Section 76 of the Act, 1951, the Legislature
of the then Madras State had made
compulsory for all religious institutions to
pay
annually
to
the
Government
a
contribution not exceeding five percent of
their income on account of services
rendered by the Government and their
Offices functioning under the said Act. The
challenge was first considered by the
Hon'ble Madras High Court which held that
the provision for compulsory contribution
available in Section 76 of the Act, 1951
came within the mischief of Article 27 of
the
Constitution
of
India.
However,
reversing the view of Hon'ble Madras High
Court, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of The
Commissioner,
Hindu
Religious
Endowments, Madras (supra) found that
such amount payable under Section 76 of
Act, 1951 to the Government was not to be
appropriated to meet the expenses for
promotion of united religion; rather, it was
utilized for the secular administration of
religious institutions. Thus, under the
Scheme of our Constitution which will
include operation of Article 27 of the
Constitution of India as well, what is
prohibited and forbidden is that the State
will not indulge in any religious activity
either for maintenance or for propagation
of religion. However, so far as the secular
activity relating to a religion is concerned,
in our considered opinion, there does not
appear to be any bar for the State to
undertake such secular activity which may
be essential for making the followers of a
particular
religion
or
religious
denomination realize their right of freedom
of conscience, practice, propagation or
professing religion.

18. We need to clearly draw
distinction between a "religious activity"
leading to maintaining or propagating a
particular
religion
or
religious
denomination and a "secular activity"
undertaken by the State to provide for
certain
conveniences
at
religious
gatherings.

19. As observed above, what is
prohibited for the State is indulgence in
religious
activity
or
the
activities
4 All. Moti Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1211
amounting to propagation of any religion or
religious denomination and not a secular
activity. When we examine the impugned
Government Order/Letter dated 10.03.2023
issued by the State Government in the
Department of Culture what we find is that
the provision for spending Rs.1,00,000/-
per district has been made not for any
religious activity or for promotion of any
religion or religious denomination; rather,
the said amount has been provided for
being
paid
honorarium
to
the
performers/Artists who will be performing
during the programmes through the District
Tourist and Culture Council, as mentioned
in the impugned Government Order/Letter.

20. It is also to be clearly noted that
the
State
by
issuing
the
impugned
Government Order/Letter has not entrusted
the said amount to anyone related to
religious activity, such as, priest of a
temple or anyone related with management
of a temple. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
has rather been entrusted with the District
Tourist and Culture Council, that too, not to
be appropriated for any religious activity,
but
to
pay
honorarium
to
the
performers/Artists.

21. We also notice that one of the
purposes for which the Government Order
dated 10.03.2023 has been issued is to
publicize different development works and
development of basic amenities by the
Tourist Department and other departments
of the State Government at the temples. It
is common knowledge that on the occasion
of Navratri Puja/Shri Ram Navami, large
number of gathering at temples take place
and if the State is making a provision for
putting up hoardings or adopting other
publicity modes in print media for
publicizing its developmental works, in our
considered opinion, such an act of the State
Government
does
not
amount
to
propagation of any religion or religious
denomination.

22. We are of the unambiguous
opinion that payment of honorarium by the
State to the Artists/Performers at the
programmes, though organized at the site
of the temples or Melas during Shri Ram
Navami, does not amount to indulgence of
the State in propagation of any religion or
religious denomination. It is a simple
secular activity of the State while it
indulges in publicizing the developmental
works undertaken by the State.

23. As observed above, the impugned
Government Order/Letter 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/Artists who may be
performing
on
such
occasions.
The
Government Order, thus, in our opinion
does not provide for any State activity
relating to maintenance or propagation of
any religion or religious denomination.

24. At this juncture, we may have a
reference of a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Prfaull
Goradia v. Union of India [(2011) 2 SCC
568]', wherein the constitutional validity of
Haj Committee Act, 1959 which was
replaced by the Haj Committee Act, 2002,
was challenged on the ground of violation
of Article 27 of the Constitution of India as
well by stating that part of proceeds of the
taxes being paid by the citizens was used
for providing subsidy for Haj pilgrimage
which is done by Muslims. Hon'ble
Supreme Court did not agree with the
submission based on Article 27 of the
Constitution of
India
and not
only
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed the writ petition but also
observed that we must not be too rigid in
such matters and must give some free play
to the joints of the State machinery.
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if
a small part of tax collected is utilized for
providing some conveniences or facilities
or
concessions
to
any
religious
denomination, that will not be violative of
Article 27 of the Constitution of India.

25. Thus, if the State spends some
money out of the taxes/revenue 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.
While observing this, 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.

26. We may also make a reference to
yet another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Gujarat and
another v. Islamic Relief Committee,
Gujarat and others [(2018) 13 SCC 687].
Dealing with a situation of damage,
destruction and desecration of religious
places and institutions in communal riots,
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
repelled
the
submissions raised on behalf of the State
that the State cannot be commanded to
repair or restore the places of worship as
any such act on the part of the State shall
create a dent in the secular fabric of our
society. Hon'ble Supreme Court further
repelled the submissions made on behalf of
the State that the expenditure in such a
situation for repair and restoration of any
place of worship is impermissible in view
of
Article
27
of
the
Constitution.
Accordingly, a Scheme for such purpose
was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court
which permitted the State to undertake
repair and restoration of places of worship
which were damaged, destructed and
desecrated during communal riots.

27. For the reasons aforesaid, we find
that the petitioner in this case has
completely misread the provisions of
Government
Order/Letter
dated
10.03.2023. We are, thus, not persuaded to
interfere in the P.I.L. which is hereby
dismissed.

28. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1212
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 1768 of 2013

Mukesh Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.P. Raju, Gyanender Singh, Pt. Surya
Kumar Awasthi, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,
Vimal Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G., Ajay Kumar Singh, Nandita Bharti,
Raj Kumar Singh, Rajeev Singh Chauhan

A. Civil Law - Termination of Probationer -
Natural Justice - Constitution of India,
Article
311
-
Central
Civil
Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule