NE LEGAL BUREAU
AHMEDABAD, JULY 28
The Gujarat High Court has said it is disappointed at the “passive and yielding approach” of the state government which chose to follow “a policy of appeasement and coaxing” instead of “taking a firm stance and boldly refusing” to allow the 143rd Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in Ahmedabad on June 23 in view of the coronavirus pandemic.
“Despite having their religious sentiments hurt, most people correctly understood the public health concerns behind the cancellation of the age-old Rath Yatra. However, what was disappointing was the passive and yielding approach of the state government.
“As a secular body heading the fight against COVID-19 in the state, the government’s main focus should be protecting the health and well-being of the people at all cost, even if it means hurting the religious sentiments of some religious leaders,” the court said in its final order made available on Tuesday on a PIL that sought its direction to not allow the Rath Yatra procession.
The court had, in its order on the PIL on June 20, stayed the Rath Yatra in Ahmedabad that was scheduled for June 23.
Later, the state government told the court the delay in taking a decision on the Rath Yatra was because of its effort to arrive at a consensus with the management of the temple trust “without hurting the religious sentiment of the people or compromising on public health”.
“Instead of taking a firm stance and boldly refusing to allow the Rath Yatra procession citing public health reasons, the government chose to follow a policy of appeasement and coaxing to convince religious leaders, temple authorities and organizers connected with Shri Jagannath Rath Yatra to avoid holding the Rath Yatra.
“During a pandemic, we do not have time for blandishment. We need action. Strong, pragmatic, and robust action,” the division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice JB Pardilwala said in the order.
It said, in times like these, the government cannot and should not follow “a policy of appeasing cultural and religious heads,” as “with infection rates going up and our resources gradually depleting, it is mandatory to focus on health rather than religion.”
“A policy of appeasement sends out a very wrong message to the public. If the government remains nonchalant on the issue of religious gatherings, this will have a serious impact on how seriously the masses take the pandemic. They too may become increasingly relaxed and easy-going, while indulging in gatherings that flout social distancing norms,” it said.
The PIL, filed by journalist Hitesh Chavda through his lawyer Aum Kotwal, had sought the court’s direction to not allow the procession given the coronavirus pandemic in the city.
After the court stayed the yatra, the state government had filed a plea to modify the order, which the court refused to observe the COVID-19 situation in Ahmedabad was not comparable to that of Puri in Odisha where the Supreme Court had allowed the Jagannath Yatra with conditions.
The High Court had, at the time, also directed the additional chief secretary (home), police commissioner, and the municipal commissioner of Ahmedabad to file a reply explaining the delay in taking a decision on the Trust’s May 18 application seeking permission for the yatra.
In her affidavit-in-reply, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sangeeta Singh told the court the delay was due to the effort of the administration to arrive at a consensus on the matter “without hurting the religious sentiment of the people or compromising on the public health view of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Citing the government’s stance in the affidavit, the court said it was “a bit disappointed.”
It said the government should make hard choices and keep them “hyper clear,” more so during times like this, as providing unclear and contradictory priorities to the people will lead to more troubles.
It said the decision to cancel the Rath Yatra avoided “a major catastrophe that could have completely derailed the state government”s fight against the COVID-19.”
“The emotional, social, and economic cost of the loss of lives following a major public gathering would have been devastating. The support and understanding shown by the masses were commendable,” it said.
The HC said social distancing has become a principal policy mechanism to prevent the spread of coronavirus in the absence of an effective vaccine, and “for a government to function effectively during the pandemic, it is paramount to have a clear list of priorities in order to make decisions quickly and effectively.”
