Rites at residence

Can an anjuman deny the performance of the last rites at the residence of an individual? This was the issue before the Gujarat High Court two months ago.

"It may be open for Respondent No 1 (Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust Fund — VPATF) to pass a resolution indicating its understanding of the custom of the community. It would however not be open for (them) to have the same enforced against a person who does not share the same belief. I fail to see how (the VPATF) can insist that last rites must be performed in the Tower of Silence and that no other person can hold a different belief and choose a particular mode of religious ceremony after his death.” This interpretation by Justice Akil Kureshi of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad was part of his oral order delivered on August 30, 2006 in favor of octogenarian Minocher Jehangirsha Dastoor who is keen that his last rites be performed at his residence, as per the custom prevailing in Valsad until 2005. "In the meantime in the unfortunate unlikely event of the petitioner expiring (the VPATF) shall not prevent the family members to bring his body to the Tower of Silence only on the ground that last rites are not being performed there,” stated Kureshi while granting interim relief to the petitioner.

Following this order an informal meeting of the trustees and office bearers was reportedly conducted when the priests and pallbearers on the payroll of the VPATF were threatened with loss of job if they performed the last rites for the deceased at the house. They were also reportedly made to address letters to the VPATF to make it appear that they were keen on the resolution being implemented.

According to the plaint, for the past over 100 years the last rites of all deceased Parsis in the district of Valsad were being permitted to be performed at their residence by the VPATF and the priests before the body was consigned to the Tower of Silence. On January 9, 2005 the VPATF passed a resolution prohibiting the performance of such ceremonies and insisting that they be performed only at the Farvardian managed by VPATF. Further after the sachkar is over, no non-Parsi was to be permitted to see the dead body. A number of representations were made by Dastoor and other like-minded people to recall the resolution. Dastoor, though, was not opposed to the latter part of the resolution.

When Dastoor’s son and other Parsi individuals made an application to the assistant charity commissioner, Valsad for restraining VPATF from implementing the resolution, the assistant charity commissioner ordered that a status quo be maintained qua the obsequial rites performed as the Trust has no jurisdiction to interfere with the religious matters as no such power is granted to the Trust in the trust deed and the functions of the trust are limited to the extent of managing the funds and properties of the Trust. In contravention of this order the Trust kept enforcing the resolution, as mentioned the plaint. When another application was made to the assistant charity commissioner for implementing this order, it was rejected on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to do so. Relief was then sought from the High Court.

On behalf of Dastoor advocates Rustom R. Marshall and Adil Mirza argued that it was an age old custom amongst the Parsis to have their last prayers performed at their residence before the body is placed at the Tower of Silence. It was further contended on the basis of the judgments of the Supreme Court that the right to follow a custom was a part of a greater right to religion and infringement of the custom was an infringement to fundamental rights to practice one’s own religion. Also, the Anjuman had no authority to pass such a resolution and force its wishes upon the general citizens, maintained the petition.

On behalf of the Anjuman advocate Ketty A. Mehta contended that the petition was not maintainable and further stated that even if the last prayers were performed at the residence, before the body is laid to rest at the Tower of Silence the last rites must be performed once again at the bungli at the Towers of Silence. She argued that the resolution was passed by the Anjuman unanimously as the same was necessitated on account of the changed circumstances, the prime object being that once the last rites are performed, no non-Parsi should be allowed to pay respect to the body of a Parsi deceased.

The petitioner however insisted that on the date when the so-called resolution was passed in the annual general meeting (AGM), the majority members of the Anju-man were not present and in fact, even the minimum required quorum for the AGM was not met and therefore the resolution could not have been passed per majority.

The plaint also faults the president and trustees of the VPATF for not objecting to the prayers being said at the residence when trustee Bomi Mehrnosh’s mother expired on April 28, 2005 while the resolution of January 2005 was in force. To strengthen their case nearly a year after the resolution, a public notice was issued by VPATF on February 7, 2006.

"The applicant has made it known that if his heirs are not allowed to perform last rites at his residence then he would prefer to be cremated rather than getting his last rites performed as per the impugned resolution…” declared the plaint praying for relief adding, "If the said thing happens then it would mean that a (priest) is being compelled to be driven out from his religion for the reasons best known to the trustees.”