The central legal point established in this judgment is that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination based on race is prohibited, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 25 of 1923) from a decree of the High Court (May 30, 1921) reversing a decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of Aligarh (September 10, 1918).

The appellants, as representing the entire Shia community of Aurangabad, filed the suit against the respondents, as representing the Sunni community in that town.

By their plaint the appellants prayed for "A declaration that the plaintiffs, along with other Shia residents of qasba Aurangabad, are entitled to stay and perform the matam in a circle at the public thoroughfare at the back of the newly built Jama Masjid and that the defendants have no right or title to offer obstructions to the same or to stop it at any time." They further prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or obstructing them while they were acting in the manner above stated. There was also a claim for Rs.200 for damages done to articles of the "majlis," and for "mental pain sustained."

The defendants by their written statement pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, and denied that any religious procession of the Shias had passed at the back of the mosque until recently.

The following issues, among others, were framed—

(6.) Whether the user of the road as alleged by the plaintiffs amounts to a nuisance for the Sunni public using the mosque? (7.) Whether the user alleged by the plaintiffs amounts to an obstruction to the public in the use of the thoroughfare, and whether, therefore, the claim is not sustainable? (8.) Whether the user alleged is likely to cause obstruction to the persons intending to use or using the mosque, and whether, therefore, the suit is not maintainable? (9) When was the mosque in question built? (10.) How long, if ever, have the Shias been using the road in question in the manner alleged? Does the user give them any right to continue it? (14.) Whether the plaintiffs, as members of the public body, have any right to perform the ceremonies mentioned in the plaint near the mosque as contended for by them ?

The trial judge held that the suit was maintainable. He decided issues (6.), (7.) and (8.) in the plaintiffs favour. As to issue (9.) he found that the present mosque was only fifteen or sixteen years old, but that a smaller mosque had previously existed on the site. As to issue (10.), he stated that the defendants no longer denied that the procession used to pass through the lane, but they alleged that the music used to stop in the vicinity of the mosque he found, however, that that was now so, that interference by the Sunnis was a new matter, and that other religious processions passing the mosque had not been interfered with. With regard to issue (14.), he said "The procession stops for five to seven minutes after travelling a short distance for reciting the mersia or performing the matam. Every Indian knows of such processions. In the Hindu processions bhajan 5 is sung at short halts made after travelling short distances. Nobody would regard such an user of the road as unjustified. The right to stop on the road for the object of the procession would be included in the right to carry the procession through the streets." He found that no damages had been proved.

The Subordinate Judge made the following decree "It is declared that, subject to the orders of the local authorities regulating the traffic, the plaintiffs have got the right to make short stays on the road at the back of the Juma Masjid at Aurangabad for the performance of the matam. The defendants, specially those named in the plaint, are hereby prohibited from making interference in the performance of matam. "

The defendants appealed to the High Court, and the plaintiffs filed objections claiming that they were entitled to the declaration made, but omitting the words; "Subject to the order of the local authorities regulating the traffic."

The High Court (Tudball and Sulaiman JJ.) set aside the decree and dismissed the suit.

The learned judges expressed the view that " a community