The Kerala State Haj Committee has approached the Supreme court assailing certain provisions of Guidelines for Haj 1439(H) – 2018 (CE) [Haj guidelines]..The petition drawn by advocate Haris Beeran and filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap has raised five major concerns with respect to the new Haj guidelines published by the Haj Committee of India..As per the petition, the guidelines are contrary to the judgment in Union of India and Others v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another. Further, the petitioner has contended that the Haj guidelines were published by the Haj Committee of India even before the new Haj Policy for 2018-22 [Haj Policy] was finalized by the Central government..The concerns raised by the petitioner are as follows..Reduction of Quota for Haj Committee Pilgrims.“The pilgrim quota for Haj Committees was reduced to 70% and 30% was given to private tour operators thereby increasing the private operator quota by 5%. This decision strikes at the very root of the interest of the pilgrims who want to travel through the Haj Committees. The Haj Committees being statutory bodies charge a reasonable amount from the pilgrims and give proper and responsible accommodation and other facilities in Saudi Arabia. The average cost of pilgrims going through Haj Committee comes to around Rs. 2 lakhs, whereas the average cost of pilgrims going to private tour operator comes to around 4 lakhs. The same also encouraged pilgrims of low incomes to have a chance to travel for pilgrimage which otherwise is not available to them.”.Doing away with exemptions from draw of lots.The applicants to the Haj Committees exceed the allotted quota to the States. This entails draw of lots to pick up the pilgrims as per the quota available to the respective State Haj Committees..As per the Haj policy of 2017, the following categories were exempted from the draw of lots:.Applicants who are above the age of 70 years.Applicants who are applying for the 4th consecutive time (These are applicants who have applied for the last 3 years consecutively and were not picked in the draw of lots)..The present guidelines have done away with the above exemptions. This the petitioner has contended infringes the rights of pilgrims..“The policy giving exemptions to these categories were based on certain logic and principles. A person who is desirous of going for the pilgrimage through the Haj Committee has a very remote chance of getting picked because of the lack of seats allocated to the Haj Committee and the volume of the applicants which are far outnumbering the allocated seats. Taking this into consideration the Govt. had framed a policy that a person who was desirous of going for Haj and had applied for the last 3 consecutive years would be given an exemption from draw of lots if he applies for a fourth time. Similarly, a person who is above 70 years of age, who is desirous of going for the pilgrimage also was given an exemption considering the age and health of such pilgrims….The impugned guidelines have sought to withdraw the said exemptions which is arbitrary and unreasonable”.Travel subsidy.The petitioner has submitted that it agrees with the view that travel subsidy is not required for Haj. However, it is contention of the petitioner that Haj pilgrims are charged three times the normal air fare..“…the pilgrim is charged 3 times the normal fare and the difference between the normal fare and the fare charged by the Haj Committee is treated as a subsidy which is paid by the Govt. It is submitted that the pilgrim is in fact paying a reasonable fare as air fare but as per the logistical issues, the air fare comes to Rs.75,000. It is submitted that the pilgrim should not be made to bear the brunt of unreasonable air fare of Rs. 75,000 which is 3 times the normal air fare. The Govt will have to provide a reasonable air fare for the pilgrims. This Hon’ble Court had specifically held that the Govt should take steps for global tenders to get the air fares at a lower rate which has not been done till date by the Govt of India. Therefore, the decision of the Govt to do away with subsidy abruptly is also against the spirit of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court.”.Allocation of Quota to State Haj Committees.“As regards the allocation of quota to the State Haj Committees, the Petitioner respectfully submits that the present allocation is on the basis of the Muslim population of each state. It is submitted that this way of allocation is unreasonable in as much as many states will have surplus quota since the number of applicants are low and certain states like the petitioner will have more applicants and the quota is low…..This creates a huge anomaly and therefore the appropriate way to allocate quota to the state Haj committees would be on the basis of the number of applicants who have applied for the Haj in the respective year.”.Calicut as Embarkation Point.The previous policy had prescribed 21 embarkation points which included Calicut for the State of Kerala. The present impugned guidelines have deleted Calicut from the list of embarkation points and have included Cochin as an embarkation point. The petitioner has objected to the same..“It is submitted that more than 83% of the total applicants and selected pilgrims applying to the Petitioner Committee come from the Malabar region of Kerala for whom Calicut is the nearest airport. It may also be mentioned that in Cochin there are no facilities for accommodating the Haj pilgrims and in the previous year a hangar was used for temporarily accommodating the Haj pilgrims. Therefore, the condition in the impugned guidelines that the embarkation point is Cochin and not Calicut is against the interest of the pilgrims and ought to be struck down.”.Claiming violation of Articles 14 and 25, the petitioner has prayed for suitable modification of the guidelines. It has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the Central government to expeditiously frame, issue and publish the new Haj Policy 2018-2022..Image taken from here.
The Kerala State Haj Committee has approached the Supreme court assailing certain provisions of Guidelines for Haj 1439(H) – 2018 (CE) [Haj guidelines]..The petition drawn by advocate Haris Beeran and filed through advocate Pallavi Pratap has raised five major concerns with respect to the new Haj guidelines published by the Haj Committee of India..As per the petition, the guidelines are contrary to the judgment in Union of India and Others v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another. Further, the petitioner has contended that the Haj guidelines were published by the Haj Committee of India even before the new Haj Policy for 2018-22 [Haj Policy] was finalized by the Central government..The concerns raised by the petitioner are as follows..Reduction of Quota for Haj Committee Pilgrims.“The pilgrim quota for Haj Committees was reduced to 70% and 30% was given to private tour operators thereby increasing the private operator quota by 5%. This decision strikes at the very root of the interest of the pilgrims who want to travel through the Haj Committees. The Haj Committees being statutory bodies charge a reasonable amount from the pilgrims and give proper and responsible accommodation and other facilities in Saudi Arabia. The average cost of pilgrims going through Haj Committee comes to around Rs. 2 lakhs, whereas the average cost of pilgrims going to private tour operator comes to around 4 lakhs. The same also encouraged pilgrims of low incomes to have a chance to travel for pilgrimage which otherwise is not available to them.”.Doing away with exemptions from draw of lots.The applicants to the Haj Committees exceed the allotted quota to the States. This entails draw of lots to pick up the pilgrims as per the quota available to the respective State Haj Committees..As per the Haj policy of 2017, the following categories were exempted from the draw of lots:.Applicants who are above the age of 70 years.Applicants who are applying for the 4th consecutive time (These are applicants who have applied for the last 3 years consecutively and were not picked in the draw of lots)..The present guidelines have done away with the above exemptions. This the petitioner has contended infringes the rights of pilgrims..“The policy giving exemptions to these categories were based on certain logic and principles. A person who is desirous of going for the pilgrimage through the Haj Committee has a very remote chance of getting picked because of the lack of seats allocated to the Haj Committee and the volume of the applicants which are far outnumbering the allocated seats. Taking this into consideration the Govt. had framed a policy that a person who was desirous of going for Haj and had applied for the last 3 consecutive years would be given an exemption from draw of lots if he applies for a fourth time. Similarly, a person who is above 70 years of age, who is desirous of going for the pilgrimage also was given an exemption considering the age and health of such pilgrims….The impugned guidelines have sought to withdraw the said exemptions which is arbitrary and unreasonable”.Travel subsidy.The petitioner has submitted that it agrees with the view that travel subsidy is not required for Haj. However, it is contention of the petitioner that Haj pilgrims are charged three times the normal air fare..“…the pilgrim is charged 3 times the normal fare and the difference between the normal fare and the fare charged by the Haj Committee is treated as a subsidy which is paid by the Govt. It is submitted that the pilgrim is in fact paying a reasonable fare as air fare but as per the logistical issues, the air fare comes to Rs.75,000. It is submitted that the pilgrim should not be made to bear the brunt of unreasonable air fare of Rs. 75,000 which is 3 times the normal air fare. The Govt will have to provide a reasonable air fare for the pilgrims. This Hon’ble Court had specifically held that the Govt should take steps for global tenders to get the air fares at a lower rate which has not been done till date by the Govt of India. Therefore, the decision of the Govt to do away with subsidy abruptly is also against the spirit of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court.”.Allocation of Quota to State Haj Committees.“As regards the allocation of quota to the State Haj Committees, the Petitioner respectfully submits that the present allocation is on the basis of the Muslim population of each state. It is submitted that this way of allocation is unreasonable in as much as many states will have surplus quota since the number of applicants are low and certain states like the petitioner will have more applicants and the quota is low…..This creates a huge anomaly and therefore the appropriate way to allocate quota to the state Haj committees would be on the basis of the number of applicants who have applied for the Haj in the respective year.”.Calicut as Embarkation Point.The previous policy had prescribed 21 embarkation points which included Calicut for the State of Kerala. The present impugned guidelines have deleted Calicut from the list of embarkation points and have included Cochin as an embarkation point. The petitioner has objected to the same..“It is submitted that more than 83% of the total applicants and selected pilgrims applying to the Petitioner Committee come from the Malabar region of Kerala for whom Calicut is the nearest airport. It may also be mentioned that in Cochin there are no facilities for accommodating the Haj pilgrims and in the previous year a hangar was used for temporarily accommodating the Haj pilgrims. Therefore, the condition in the impugned guidelines that the embarkation point is Cochin and not Calicut is against the interest of the pilgrims and ought to be struck down.”.Claiming violation of Articles 14 and 25, the petitioner has prayed for suitable modification of the guidelines. It has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the Central government to expeditiously frame, issue and publish the new Haj Policy 2018-2022..Image taken from here.
