Supreme Court Upholds Haj Policy: Federation Haj PTOs vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 04 February 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., M.R. Shah, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a challenge to the Haj Policy 2019-2023, specifically focusing on the eligibility criteria for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) organizing Haj pilgrimages. The core issue revolved around whether the government’s policy, which emphasized financial turnover for categorizing PTOs, was reasonable and in the best interest of the pilgrims. This judgment examines the balance between regulatory control and the operational needs of private tour operators in facilitating the Haj pilgrimage.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge by the Federation/Association of Private Tour Operators (PTOs)/Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) against the Haj Policy 2019-2023. These organizations represent various PTOs/HGOs that facilitate the Haj pilgrimage for Muslims. The Government of India formulates the Haj Policy to manage the pilgrimage, which includes setting eligibility and registration criteria for PTOs/HGOs. The policy is created in line with a bilateral agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which limits the number of pilgrims from each country. The petitioners felt aggrieved by certain eligibility conditions and provisions in the Haj Policy, particularly those related to financial turnover for categorization of PTOs.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the Haj Policy. The Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of the issue, facilitated a meeting between the petitioners and the Hon’ble Minister to discuss their grievances. During this meeting, the petitioners proposed alternative criteria for categorizing HGOs, which included a two-category system based on turnover, and the acceptance of IBAN receipts for accommodation. The government agreed to some of the suggestions but did not accept the proposed two-category system based on turnover. The Court then proceeded to hear arguments on the remaining points of contention.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the government’s policy-making power and the scope of judicial review in such matters. The Supreme Court considered the following principles:

• ✓ The government has the authority to formulate policies, especially in areas of economic and social importance, such as the Haj pilgrimage.
• ✓ The court’s role is limited to reviewing whether a policy is against any statute, violates the Constitution, or is manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide.
• ✓ The Court acknowledged that the government is required to act in accordance with law and not according to its sweet will or in an arbitrary manner and it could not escape the rigour of Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ✓ The Court recognized that in complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view several factors and it is not possible for the courts to consider competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• ✓ The petitioners argued that the Haj Policy’s criteria for categorizing HGOs, particularly the high turnover requirements of Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 3 crores for Category-I* and Category-I respectively, were unreasonable.
• ✓ They proposed a two-category system based on turnover of Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 1 crore for Category-I and Category-II, respectively.
• ✓ The petitioners contended that the emphasis on financial strength sidelined the experience of HGOs, many of whom had years of experience in organizing Haj operations.
• ✓ They argued that the high turnover requirements could lead to HGOs charging exorbitant rates to pilgrims, which would go against the purpose of ensuring a smooth and affordable pilgrimage.
• ✓ The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India and Others v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another, which emphasized that the primary goal of the Haj Policy was to ensure a smooth pilgrimage for the pilgrims, not to maximize profits for PTOs.
• ✓ They also referred to the same judgment where an annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore was deemed sufficient.
• ✓ The petitioners argued that the current policy did not follow the principle of proportionality as laid down in the previous judgment.
• ✓ They submitted that since the quota is in the hands of the Government and only limited seats are allotted to each PTOs/ HGOs, it is difficult to have a turnover of Rs.5 crores without hiking the cost for pilgrims.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• ✓ The respondent argued that the Haj Policy was based on data collected and compiled by IIT Delhi, an expert body, and after due consideration of the views of the stakeholders.
• ✓ The respondent emphasized that the Ministry had considered both experience and financial strength, as recommended by IIT Delhi.
• ✓ They submitted that financial strength was crucial for PTOs to manage the logistics of the pilgrimage, including transportation, accommodation, and other arrangements for a large number of pilgrims.
• ✓ The respondent argued that accepting the petitioners’ suggestion would lead to eleven sub-categories, which would be structurally complex and unmanageable.
• ✓ The respondent submitted that the decision was based on policy considerations and was not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the eligibility criteria for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) under the Haj Policy 2019-2023, specifically the turnover requirements for categorizing PTOs, were reasonable and justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another [CITATION: (2013) 4 SCC 699] and Union of India and Others v. Rafique Shaikh Bhikan and Another [CITATION: (2012) 6 SCC 265] was cited to emphasize that the primary goal of the Haj Policy is to ensure a smooth pilgrimage for pilgrims, not to maximize profits for PTOs. However, the Court distinguished this case from the present case by stating that the earlier case had considered the turnover of Rs. 1 crore as sufficient. In the present case, the government had taken into consideration the financial strength as well as the experience.
• ✓ Benett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India [CITATION: (1972) 2 SCC 788] was followed to emphasize that courts should not interfere with government policy decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
• ✓ Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [CITATION: (1984) 4 SCC 27] was followed to highlight that courts cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of policies formulated by the legislature or subordinate bodies.
• ✓ State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlan Jaiswal [CITATION: (1986) 4 SCC 566] was followed to emphasize that while the State must act in accordance with law, courts should be slow to interfere with economic policies.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ Policy Considerations: The Court emphasized that policy decisions are best left to the executive branch and that judicial interference is limited.
• ✓ Expert Opinion: The Court noted that the Haj Policy was based on data and recommendations from IIT Delhi, an expert body.
• ✓ Balance of Factors: The Court recognized that the government had considered both experience and financial strength in formulating the policy.
• ✓ Financial Stability: The Court acknowledged the importance of financial stability for PTOs to ensure the safety and well-being of pilgrims.
• ✓ Limited Judicial Review: The Court reiterated that judicial review of policy decisions is limited to cases of statutory violation, constitutional infringement, or manifest arbitrariness.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the policy was based on expert data and the government had the right to formulate policies. The Court also considered the need for financial stability of the PTOs to ensure the safety and well-being of the pilgrims. The Court ultimately upheld the policy, finding no grounds for judicial interference.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• ✓ “It is settled law that policy decisions of the Executive are best left to it and a court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Government policy.”
• ✓ “The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body.”
• ✓ “The Court would, in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity allow a large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating, manufacture and trade in liquor.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of three judges, all of whom concurred with the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Government policy decisions, especially in economic and social matters, are given significant deference by the courts.
• ✓ Expert opinions and stakeholder consultations are important in formulating policies.
• ✓ Financial stability of private operators is a crucial factor in ensuring the safety and well-being of pilgrims.
• ✓ Judicial review of policy decisions is limited to cases of statutory violation, constitutional infringement, or manifest arbitrariness.
• ✓ The court will not interfere with the government’s policy decisions unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 93 of 2019 should be considered by the competent authority, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and necessary orders should be passed within a week. This direction was given because the petitioner in that case was wrongfully denied registration in the previous year, which affected their turnover.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the government has the authority to formulate policies, especially in areas of economic and social importance, and the courts should be slow to interfere with such policies unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. The judgment reinforces the principle of limited judicial review in policy matters. There is no change in previous positions of law, but the current policy was upheld as it was based on expert opinion and consideration of all relevant factors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Haj Policy 2019-2023, emphasizing the government’s authority to formulate policies based on expert opinions and stakeholder consultations. The Court found that the policy, which considered both experience and financial strength of PTOs, was not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. The decision reinforces the principle of limited judicial review in policy matters and highlights the importance of financial stability for private operators in ensuring the safety and well-being of pilgrims.