2012 (5) TMI 858 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility conditions for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) in the 2012 Haj Policy.
2. Hajj Subsidy.
3. Goodwill Hajj Delegation.
4. Allocation of special quotas for Hajj.

Summary:

1. Eligibility Conditions for Private Tour Operators (PTOs):
- The dispute arose from the Government of India's 2011 Haj Policy requiring a "minimum office area of 250 sq. ft." for PTO registration. The Bombay High Court rejected the challenge but directed the allocation of certain seats to some petitioners. The Supreme Court stayed this direction.
- The Court examined the 2012 Haj Policy, noting the increase in PTO applications and the need for stringent conditions to ensure smooth and trouble-free Hajj for pilgrims.
- The Court upheld the conditions for PTO registration, including:
- Clause 4: Limiting registration to one family member, with preference to women or the oldest in the business.
- Minimum office area of 250 sq. ft.: To ensure genuine operators and prevent black marketing.
- Annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore: Reflecting the substantial business involved.
- Security deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs: To ensure financial soundness and accountability.
- Court cases: Disqualification only for cases against the PTO, not for enforcing rights.
- Online applications: Accepted with complete details.
- The Court approved the 2012 Haj Policy but suggested improvements, such as requiring applicants to disclose arrangements and charges for pilgrims, and considering a ceiling on PTO numbers with competitive selection.

2. Hajj Subsidy:
- The subsidy has increased over the years due to more pilgrims and higher travel costs. In 2011, the subsidy reached Rs. 685 crores.
- The Court noted that the subsidy covers the additional fare due to Saudi regulations, with pilgrims paying Rs. 16,000 and the government covering the rest.
- The Court directed the government to progressively reduce and eliminate the subsidy within 10 years, suggesting the funds be used for community upliftment in education and social development.
- The Court anticipated an increased demand for PTOs as the subsidy reduces, requiring a nuanced policy for PTO registration and quota allocation.

3. Goodwill Hajj Delegation:
- The delegation, first sent in 1967, was to counter anti-India propaganda but now serves to convey goodwill and oversee arrangements.
- The Court criticized the arbitrary selection of delegation members and the lack of clear criteria, finding it in violation of Article 14.
- The Court recommended stopping the current practice and suggested sending a leader and deputy leader, with the leader forming a representative team from Indian pilgrims in consultation with the Indian Ambassador and Consul General.

4. Allocation of Special Quotas for Hajj:
- The Court sought detailed information on the allocation of 11,000 special quota seats reserved for various categories, including Khadim-ul-Hujjaj, Mehram, Bohras, and others.
- The Court expressed reservations about allocating seats based on recommendations by dignitaries and eminent persons.
- The Court directed the Union of India and Haj Committees to file detailed affidavits on the selection process, charges, and facilities provided to pilgrims.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court addressed multiple issues related to the 2012 Haj Policy, emphasizing the need for stringent conditions for PTO registration, reducing Hajj subsidies, reforming the Goodwill Hajj Delegation, and ensuring transparency in the allocation of special quotas. The Court's directives aimed at ensuring a smooth and fair Hajj process for Indian pilgrims.