Stay in close contact

A recent Supreme Court judgment upholding the formation of a cooperative housing society exclusively for a group of like-minded persons from the same religion, caste, profession, sex has laid to rest apprehensions among certain quarters knowing that outsiders could no longer insist on seeking membership and thereby upset the original character of the society. Conversely there are others who fear that the very fabric of a pluralistic society could be damaged with ghettoization getting legal sanction.

This judgment by a bench of Justices B. N. Agrawal and P. K. Balasubra­man­yan in response to an appeal by Gujarat’s Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society against the ruling of the Gujarat High Court "may help lakhs of exclusive societies across the country in retaining their basic features besides making it difficult for builders and property agents to gain an easy entry in certain classified societies,” assessed The Times of India of April 20, 2005.

The petitioner’s counsel Soli J. Sorab­jee, former attor­ney general of India, argued that Parsis like any other community or class had the fundamental right to form an association and "that fundamental right cannot be infringed by thrusting upon it members whom it does not want to admit or are against the terms of byelaws.” The respondent’s counsel V. A. Bobde replied that a byelaw restricting membership in a cooperative society to a particular denomination, community, caste or creed was opposed to public policy. The bench further ruled that each cooperative housing society would be governed by the laws of the state. Since Maharashtra’s cooperative act stipulates open membership, the apex court judgment is unlikely to have any immediate impact on Bombay unless the state government chooses to amend the law, it was clarified in the Times of April 24.

The Supreme Court order "in fact reverses several high court judgments which struck down such discrimination,” reported The Times of India of April 21. In Bombay, the Zoroastrian Radih Society had lost its case against Pervin Jogina who had inducted into her flat in Jogeshwari’s Behrambaug her non-Parsi daughter-in-law. Senior solicitor Nadir Modi was quoted by the Times, "The Supreme Court ruling is of great significance. When any small group is legally helped to stay in close contact with each other, its qualities, values and traditions are fostered...It is a welcome decision for a miniscule community.” "The verdict is an extension of the constitutional freedom to belong to a particular religious denomination or political ideo-logy...If I can exclude others from my own place of worship, why can’t I do so with my residence?” senior lawyer Jamshed P. Cama was quoted in the Times of April 24.

Similarly favoring the judgment was Ramesh Prabhu of the Maharashtra Co-operative Hous­ing Societies who believed, "It is a good trend when like-minded people come together.” Residents of the 90-year-old Saraswat Housing Co-operative Limited in Gamdevi told the Times of April 22 that they harbor no "malice” against other communities but prefer to be with their own "for the smooth working of the society.”

However advocate Rajiv Wagh felt that such exclusivity, promoting discrimination, must be opposed. Similarly advocate Vinod Sampat, president of the Co-operative Societies Residents and Users Association feared it would be misused by Society office bearers to harass bonafide purchasers by demanding addi­tional transfer fees. Further this order could make prices plum­met in those areas knowing that a member cannot sell his flat in the open market.

Bombay has traditional community enclaves, especially for Parsis, Catholics, Jains, Sindhis and Saraswat Gouds. To these ethnic ranks has been added a new criterion — being vegetarian, reported the Times, alleging how India’s tallest residential build­ing, the 45-storey Shreepati Arcade at Nana Chowk too has rules barring non-vegetarians as members.