Former AG urged court to take stand

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court’s landmark judgement on Friday, which gives women unfettered access to Haji Ali’s inner sanctum, which houses the tomb, was in response

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court’s landmark judgement on Friday, which gives women unfettered access to Haji Ali’s inner sanctum, which houses the tomb, was in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz from the nonprofit Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA).

HT Image

A significant development took place February 9 this year, when then advocate general of Maharashtra Shrihari Aney said that women must have an unfettered right to worship, at par with men. When the court asked if it should intervene in an ostensibly religious matter, Aney said that while the state had a duty to ensure that laws were enforced uniformly, if a difficulty arose in applying a constitutional requirement, the court must take a stand.

In June 2012, BMMA members were prevented from entering the dargah’s inner sanctum. BMMA first approached the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission and the State Minorities Welfare Department, both of which refused to intervene. So Soman and Niaz filed a PIL in the high court.

The PIL was first mentioned by advocate Raju Moray on November 7, 2014 before then Chief Justice Mohit Shah. He argued that the trust’s ban constituted discrimination on the basis of gender and infringed upon women’s fundamental right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The trust justified the ban by citing verses from the Quran. Its members said that according to Islam, women must not mix with men and that they are impure when menstruating. They said some women visited the dargah in revealing clothes and claimed that the ban prevented sexual harassment at the crowded shrine. They also argued that as a religious body, the trust had a fundamental right to manage its own affairs.

The petitioners, however, argued that the Quran did not explicitly forbid women from visiting the tombs of holy men, pointing out that men and women visit the resting place of the Prophet Mohammad in Medina, the Ajmer Sharif dargah, and several other dargahs in Mumbai.

While hearing the case, the court suggested that the petitioners and the trust attempt an amicable solution. In October 2015, the trust said this was not possible.

The bench listed the matter for directions on June 9 and sought information about the Sabrimala temple case, which is being heard in the Supreme Court. It said the judgment would be pronounced on June 28. However, it was subsequently deferred to August 26.

On Friday, the court ruled verdict before a packed courtroom that the ban was unconstitutional and that both the trust and the state government had a duty to ensure women had equal access to the shrine as men.