Building Haj house secular act, not religious: High Court to Hindutva leader

The Bombay High Court on Thursday told Hindutva leader Milind Ekbote, associated with the Samast Hindu Aghadi, that building a Haj house is a "secular activity, not religious". Milind Ekbote filed a petition seeking to demolish a Haj house in Pune which is currently under construction.

The court told Ekbote, "You must differentiate between indulgence of the state in religious activity and secular activity. Construction of Haj house is a secular activity. It is not a religious activity. Do not confuse yourself."

The bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor converted Milind Ekbote's writ petition into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) after observing that he had no personal interest in the case.

Ekbote's lawyer, Kapil Rathod, told the court that there had been a "change in land use" as the site was reserved for providing basic amenities to people in and around the Kondhwa area of Pune. He argued that the land use had been changed to construct the Haj house.

Rathod said the construction of a Haj house comes under "religious activity" and that it was "not acceptable in current scenario". "How come only one community gets the benefit? There are lakhs of devotees who come to Pandharpur but nothing is done for them," Rathod told the court.

However, Advocate Abhijit Kulkarni appearing for Pune Municipal Corporation, said the land use was not changed. He said different communities get space for their cultural and community activities at the site. He also pointed out that, according to Kapil Rathod, two floors of the building had already been constructed. The court then asked him to file an affidavit in reply to the petition.

The bench also asked Kapil Rathod to just concentrate on the Haj house matter. "Where is the change in land use? If you build a temple, will it be used by everyone? Please make out a case first and show judgement that a Haj house cannot be constructed," said the bench.

The bench added, "You said that there is a change in land use. Point out from your pleadings any single paragraph." It said it was a "settled position of law" that the indulgence of the State in religious activity is not permissible.