Awaiting the verdict

After a hearing spread over an hour on March 29 and two hours on March 30 the Bombay High Court judge A. M. Khanwilkar is expected to give his decision on the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) petition for adult franchise on April 5, 2007.

Noted BPP counsel Iqbal Chagla along with Darius Khambata and Shyam Mehta told the court packed with interested community members, trustees, interveners and lawyers that "these proposed amendments are in the interest of the (BPP) trust and the community.”

A tabulation detailing the major proposed amendments had been submitted to the court. The amendments include: a direct vote for every Parsi Zoroastrian aged 21 and over to elect trustees of the BPP; two votes for donors, people who had given specified sums or more of money to the BPP; the chairmanship of the BPP to be by seniority barring a unanimous decision by all the other trustees opposing the seniormost trustee occupying the chair and electing another trustee in his place; all existing trustees to step down from office once the new scheme comes into effect and new trustees are elected.

Supporting the BPP’s application was community activist Phiroze Amroliwalla who stated he was "not hesitant to surrender any donor right. Philanthropy should not be linked to any rights. (One should) give from the heart.” In the existing scheme the donor voters (those who had donated certain specified amounts or more to the BPP) and the elected voters (those elected by the community at large) enjoy parity. Hence if there were 1,168 donors, the community would elect 1,168 representatives. The total of the two registers, 2,336, referred to as the Anjuman Committee (AC), would elect the trustees of the BPP as and when vacancies arise.

Amroliwalla was not averse to donors receiving an extra vote as proposed to compensate them for the monies given.

He also queried why the voter age should not be reduced to 18 from 21 as is the case in the national elections. Chagla agreed and said the BPP would accept the lower age limit.

Amroliwalla alleged that those who opposed the existing adult franchise scheme in favor of the AC were "selfish. (They want) to deny the right (to vote) to others. (There will be an) injustice done if adult franchise is not permitted.”

Intervener Percy Patel of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) said he supported the adult franchise scheme in toto as did Zeree Jehangirji whose only proviso was that "the elections be held as early as possible.”

Former municipal corporator and former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz opposed the donor members having two votes. "No single person should have two rights.” He advocated the principle of "one man-one vote.”

He also opposed an intervener who wanted a 65 year age limit for those standing for trusteeship. "Why should a person who is 70 be barred from contesting… a candidate can fight from a wheelchair if he is able.” The decision on whom to elect should be left to the voters.

Referring to the newly formed AC, he quoted BPP counsel Navroz Seervai as stating the whole process was "gerrymandered” to the advantage of one group [The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ)].

A 100 nominations were proposed by one person while another 75 were nominated by another individual, Tirandaz alleged. On the last day, the exact number of nominations were received so that no election need be called for.

He warned that if an AC election were genuinely held then with over 2,300 candidates standing for the 1,168 vacancies, the ballot paper would have to be the size of a newspaper. He wanted the new AC to be "stayed indefinitely.”

Dr Syrus Irani, who had unsuccessfully contested the BPP trusteeship elections in the past also opposed the double vote for donors as did Dr Viraf Kapadia represented by advocate Pervez Bhumgara. Kapadia wanted an age limit of 65 to which Khanwilkar noted the Indian constitution did not specify an upper age limit for holding public office, only a minimum age limit for voting (18 years). The judge noted that often it was only "after other (professions/work) commitments are over” one could indulge in extra social activities. It was "up to the common voter to vote or not to vote” for a candidate, the judge observed.

Kirti Munshi, the lawyer representing three founder members of WAPIZ — Khojeste Mistree, Hoshang Vania and Yazdi Desai — argued in favor of continuing with the AC system as versus adult franchise. "The present system is good.” He noted there was voter apathy and that 2,336 people were sufficient to ensure a representative election. "The rest (of the community) is not interested,” he alleged, citing low voter turnout in earlier elections. The three interveners also opposed the proposal that if all the trustees do not want the seniormost trustee to be named chairperson, they should have the right to elect any other trustee in his place. WAPIZ is a supporter of BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta who is the seniormost trustee after Minoo Shroff.

Khanwilkar observed that even in general elections only those who were interested in electing good officials bothered to vote.

Munshi argued that as four of the six trustees had submitted and subsequently withdrawn their resignations and as Mistree and others had challenged the validity of their withdrawals, the required quorum of three trustees was not present to pass the resolution authorizing the BPP to move the court amending the election scheme. Their petition was dismissed by Bombay High Court judge Roshan Dalvi but Mistree and the others moved a divisional bench of the High Court which will give its decision on April 5, 2007. (The case reportedly hinges on the date and time the letters of resignation and withdrawal were forwarded to trustees Dinshaw Mehta and Dadi Engineer.)

Khanwilkar observed that the trust was presently functioning with the existing six trustees and if this did not constitute a quorum, then an administrator would have had to be appointed.

The day earlier Khanwilkar had turned down the plea of Mistree and the others to reject the electoral amendments on the ground that the appeal for dismissal was pending before the divisional bench.

Intervener Pervez Driver pleaded that the "Anjuman Committee has worked well.” He noted till 2005 the BPP trustees opposed universal adult franchise when interveners had raised the issue before the courts. But in the last six months the scenario has changed. "Suddenly what has happened?” he queried.

"If the change is for the good of the community, why not welcome it?” mentioned Khanwilkar. The lawyer for intervener Fali Poncha said elections should be held with the old AC, not the newly formed one.

A lady advocate who had filed her affidavit only the evening before urged the court to at least hold the election with the newly formed AC for the seat kept vacant by the demise of sitting trustee Silloo Kavarana. She observed that Bombay High Court judge R. S. Mohite had ruled the election be held before August 2007.

Intervener Freny Divecha wanted the AC to be retained and believed that the concept of adult franchise was not opposed to the extension of the AC.

Chagla said there was "no question of going back” to the old scheme. To incur expenditure to elect a trustee by the newly formed AC and then to have that person resign in a few months’ time and seek reelection under adult franchise would be a waste of time and money. All the trustees are committed to resign once the new scheme comes into force and new trustees are elected.

Countering the arguments raised by those opposing adult franchise, Chagla noted that Mohite "had no alternative to consider… everything was under the old scheme.” By staying the functioning of the existing AC, Khanwilkar was "not undoing any order” of Mohite.

Noting that with 18,000 to 20,000 voters an extra vote for 1,168 donors could not make a great difference to the outcome, Chagla argued, noting, the issue "becomes academic.” Besides by giving donors an extra vote it served as "some form of incentive” to donate, he added.

He requested the court to give the petitioners six months to implement adult franchise if the judge approved the scheme. But the BPP administration felt eight months may be required for the preparatory work. When Chagla asked for the additional two months, several parties got up opposing the extension. Finally it was decided that the court should grant six months and if more time was required, the court could be moved accordingly.

The BPP would move the court later for an additional two months if required.