IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Minority Development Department – Respondent
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 106 OF 2014
Decided On : 26-08-2016
The Haji Ali Dargah Trust imposed a ban on women entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Dargah, citing reasons of safety, security, and prevention of sexual harassment. The petitioners, a group of social activists, challenged the ban, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India. The Bombay High Court held that the ban was unconstitutional and violated the petitioners' rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion. The court noted that the ban was not based on any religious text or practice and that the Trust had not demonstrated that the ban was essential to the practice of Islam. The court also held that the Trust's argument that the ban was necessary to protect women from sexual harassment was misplaced, as the Trust could take other measures to ensure women's safety without resorting to a complete ban on their entry.
Fact of the Case:
The Haji Ali Dargah Trust imposed a ban on women entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Dargah, citing reasons of safety, security, and prevention of sexual harassment. The petitioners, a group of social activists, challenged the ban, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Bombay High Court held that the ban was unconstitutional and violated the petitioners' rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion.
Issues: 1. Whether the ban on women entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the ban was based on any religious text or practice and whether the Trust had demonstrated that the ban was essential to the practice of Islam? 3. Whether the Trust's argument that the ban was necessary to protect women from sexual harassment was misplaced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the ban violated the petitioners' rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion under Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court noted that the ban was not based on any religious text or practice and that the Trust had not demonstrated that the ban was essential to the practice of Islam. 3. The court held that the Trust's argument that the ban was necessary to protect women from sexual harassment was misplaced, as the Trust could take other measures to ensure women's safety without resorting to a complete ban on their entry.
Final Decision: The court held that the ban was unconstitutional and violated the petitioners' rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion. The court directed the Trust to lift the ban and allow women to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the Dargah on par with men.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Learned Counsel waive notice for the respective respondents.
3. Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.
4. By this PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are social activists, have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.
5. The petitioners state that they are the office bearers of ‘Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan’ – a national secular autonomous mass movement of Muslim Women with over 50,000 members in 15 States. According to the petitioners, since their childhood, they were visiting the Haji Ali Dargah, the Dargah of Pir Haji Ali Shah Bukhari (R.A.), the patron saint and during their visits, were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum where the saint lied buried, through a separate entry earmarked only for women to enable them to offer prayers. They have stated that in March, 2011, when the petitioner No. 1 along with other activists, visited the Haji Ali Dargah, they were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum to offer prayers. According to the petitioners, in June, 2012 when the petitioner No. 1 revisited the Dargah to offer prayers, she discovered a steel barricade put up at the entry of the sanctum sanctorum, thus preventing the entry of women devotees in the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah. Pursuant to the said restriction imposed on women devotees, the petitioners approached the authorities of the respondent No. 2 Trust and sought answers for imposing such a ban/rule. It is stated that the President of the Haji Ali Dargah Trust disclosed that the reasons for imposing such a ban/rule were – (i) women wearing blouses with wide necks bend on the Mazaar, thus showing their breasts; (ii) for the safety and security of women; and (iii) that earlier they were not aware of the provisions of Shariat and had made a mistake and therefore had taken steps to rectify the same.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioners approached various State Authorities including, the State Minority Commission and requested them to intervene in the said matter. The petitioners also sent letters to several Authorities registering their protest and seeking their support and intervention in the matter of prevention of entry of women in the inner sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah. Letters were sent to the State Minority Commission, National Commission for Women, State Commission for Women, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Trustee of Makhdoom Shah Baba Trust and a few Ministers. It is stated that the State Minorities Development Department arranged a joint meeting of the petitioners and the Haji Ali Dargah Trustees along with Islamic Scholar Dr. Zeenat Shaukatali and other Government Officers, with a view to discuss and resolve the matter amicably. However, the Trustees of the respondent No. 2 Trust, did not turn up for the said meeting. Thereafter, the petitioners again made several representations to various authorities but the said representations went unheard. According to the petitioners, in January, 2013, a letter was sent by the Solicitors of the Haji Ali Dargah Trust to the said Minorities Development Department explaining their position in the said matter. In the said letter, it was stated that the Holy Shrine was open to all persons regardless of gender, caste, creed, etc. It was also stated that to maintain sanctity, discipline, decorum, peace and to avoid chaos, they had earmarked separate entries for men and women devotees and visitors. According to the petitioners, the said letter was clearly contrary to the issue raised and the actual realities faced by the petitioners i.e. women were not being allowed in the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah. The petitioners thereafter, again requested the respondent No. 2 Trust to discuss the issue and come to a con
A.S. Narayana Deekhshitutlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. (2016) SCC 709 SC
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar
C. Masilamani Mudliar v. Idol of Shri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwaranananda Avadhuta
Dr. Subramanium Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Mohd. Wasi & Anr. vs. Bachchan Sahib & Ors. AIR 1955 All. 68
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay
Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner v. L.T. Swamiar of Shirur Mutt
The Deputy General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiam
The Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.