Updated: 21th march,2025

The Supreme Court declined to impede the execution of the Union Government‘s 2025 Haj Policy, which was formulated after consulting with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Several Writ Petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court contesting the Haj Policy, 2025. The petitioners, who were Haj Group Organisers (“HGOs”), contested the distribution of Haj pilgrim quotas under the Haj-2025 Policy, claiming that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. According to them, certain HGOs received disproportionately fewer pilgrims than others, making the distribution unfair.

The bench made up of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh approved the arrangement after the petitioner’s attorney told the court that quota redistribution among the three HGOs had been done for a more equitable allocation and that different HGOs were allowed to submit final Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) by 20.03.2025 in accordance with the Union’s notice dated 18.03.2015, which outlined CHGO (Combined HGOs) terms and internal quota distribution. Additionally, the Court urged lead and non-lead HGOs to transfer excess pilgrims to those with smaller allotments.

The Court recognized that there are frequently initial difficulties and irregularities while implementing a new policy, such as Haj-2025, and stated that the system of equal allocation among the HGOs would resolve the matter.

“We are not inclined to further intervene with the Haj-2025 Policy’s execution at this time, as the current petitions do not contest the policy and its current implementation has already taken shape. The court stated that the actions already taken in our order of 06.03.2025 and in paragraph 5 of this ruling deserve the resolution of these issues.”

The Court demonstrated restraint by promoting a solution based on equity and collaboration across HGOs rather than meddling in the policy’s execution.

“In such consideration, it would, of course, follow that the interests of all stakeholders are kept in mind. The most important beneficiaries of the policy are the pilgrims, whose religious interests are the basis of the policy. Apart from these, commercial interests of the HGOs are also to be considered, for which the instant Writ Petitions have been filed. It would go without saying that all these interests would be kept in mind by the policymakers in its approach to implementation of the Haj policies in the future.”, the court observed.

Since the Court was challenging the policy’s implementation rather than the policy itself, it declined to get involved in the policy’s execution but made it clear that the parties would be free to present their arguments in the proper forum regarding any future discrimination or other problems with the Haj policies’ implementation. The applicants were free to use the legal remedy, but any other intervention applications that raised further concerns about the policy and its application were rejected as unmaintainable.