Editorial Viewpoint
Right another wrong
It’s not often one gets a firsthand opportunity to see justice being done. One may read reports in the newspapers or partially watch a trial on television. But rarely does one see the entire process unravel.
Sitting in the court of justices Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop V. Mohta during the two-and-a-half-day hearing of the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) petition proved both instructive and enlightening. The motley group of trustees, petitioners, interveners, community activists, journalists and lawyers listened attentively to the arguments that would decide the fate of adult franchise in the community (see “The final countdown,” page 23).
The judges’ remarks and wry humor were heard with eagerness and anticipation. The question hinged around whether the four trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) who resigned could or could not withdraw their resignations. If not, then the scheme for adult franchise proposed by them would also fail as the board would not have the required quorum to function. What line of argument would hold sway? What were their lordships’ thoughts on the subject?
Perhaps the most reassuring statement was made by Radha-krishnan when in the course of some legal argument he observed, “Ultimately we have to do justice.” One felt at that moment that more than the legal technicalities involved in all cases, the judges would see that justice is delivered.
Due to their animosity against some of the BPP trustees, WAPIZ had stalled the adult franchise electoral process put in place by Justice A. N. Khanwilkar in April 2007. When they realized their strategy was not only keeping the trustees in office longer than they would otherwise have stayed and that the new Anjuman Committee they had packed with their supporters would also be struck down if the trustees’ resignation was upheld, they lost their rationale for litigation.
Their advocate Virender Tulzapur-kar put up a brave face but had to bear the barbs for defending the indefensible. His clients were referred to as “status quoists,” “antediluvian” and persons “who opposed everything.”
Sensing the possibility they may lose the case and have to face the wrath of the community at election time for having opposed adult franchise, WAPIZ changed track during the course of the arguments. They now stated they favored adult franchise but on condition that the donors get only one vote instead of two. As it is, the poor donors’ rights have dwindled from parity to one-third to one-tenth.
Also nobody outside Bombay should be allowed to vote, said WAPIZ, unmindful of the fact that the largest donations received by the Bombay community come from overseas (The Hong Kong Anjuman, the Zartoshty Brothers and the Jokhis amongst others. WAPIZ itself is largely funded by Areez Khambatta of Ahmedabad.). Traditionally any Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian donor registered with the BPP and present in Bombay on election day was eligible to vote.
It was not hard to fathom where the judges’ sympathies lay. When noted lawyer Rusi Sethna said he favored a select electorate instead of adult franchise, Radhakrishnan asked him if he was aware the constitution spoke of a government “by the people.” He also asked in jest if Sethna would want to extend the franchise only to pipe smokers. (Sethna regularly puffs on a pipe.)
The WAPIZ members present in the court must have suffered palpitations when during the discussions on the definition of Parsi, Radha-krishnan counseled the community to “make amendments” to include the children of women married out. “The community will grow,” he said. In conceiving a male child “has the female no role to play? Why should she be denied (the right)?” he queried.
“Maternity is certain. Paternity is an assumption,” pitched in the BPP counsel Iqbal Chagla. Someone in the court added, “It’s a suspicion.” Amongst Jews, the race was perpetuated by the women, noted Chagla.
Radhakrishnan’s observations are particularly telling because for reasons best known to themselves, women married outside of the community have been hesitant to take their cause to court. Now a respected judge of the Bombay High Court was in fact asking the community to change its dogmatic approach.
Women may draw further inspiration from the present case. So many naysayers claimed the laws would never permit adult franchise for elections of the BPP trustees, that the donors’ rights were inviolate, and so on. Khanwilkar showed it could be done. Radhakrishnan and Mohta have also provided more than an inkling of how the judiciary thinks.
Is it not now time to take up cudgels and right another historic wrong?
Sitting in the court of justices Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop V. Mohta during the two-and-a-half-day hearing of the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) petition proved both instructive and enlightening. The motley group of trustees, petitioners, interveners, community activists, journalists and lawyers listened attentively to the arguments that would decide the fate of adult franchise in the community (see “The final countdown,” page 23).
The judges’ remarks and wry humor were heard with eagerness and anticipation. The question hinged around whether the four trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) who resigned could or could not withdraw their resignations. If not, then the scheme for adult franchise proposed by them would also fail as the board would not have the required quorum to function. What line of argument would hold sway? What were their lordships’ thoughts on the subject?
Perhaps the most reassuring statement was made by Radha-krishnan when in the course of some legal argument he observed, “Ultimately we have to do justice.” One felt at that moment that more than the legal technicalities involved in all cases, the judges would see that justice is delivered.
Due to their animosity against some of the BPP trustees, WAPIZ had stalled the adult franchise electoral process put in place by Justice A. N. Khanwilkar in April 2007. When they realized their strategy was not only keeping the trustees in office longer than they would otherwise have stayed and that the new Anjuman Committee they had packed with their supporters would also be struck down if the trustees’ resignation was upheld, they lost their rationale for litigation.
Their advocate Virender Tulzapur-kar put up a brave face but had to bear the barbs for defending the indefensible. His clients were referred to as “status quoists,” “antediluvian” and persons “who opposed everything.”
Sensing the possibility they may lose the case and have to face the wrath of the community at election time for having opposed adult franchise, WAPIZ changed track during the course of the arguments. They now stated they favored adult franchise but on condition that the donors get only one vote instead of two. As it is, the poor donors’ rights have dwindled from parity to one-third to one-tenth.
Also nobody outside Bombay should be allowed to vote, said WAPIZ, unmindful of the fact that the largest donations received by the Bombay community come from overseas (The Hong Kong Anjuman, the Zartoshty Brothers and the Jokhis amongst others. WAPIZ itself is largely funded by Areez Khambatta of Ahmedabad.). Traditionally any Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian donor registered with the BPP and present in Bombay on election day was eligible to vote.
It was not hard to fathom where the judges’ sympathies lay. When noted lawyer Rusi Sethna said he favored a select electorate instead of adult franchise, Radhakrishnan asked him if he was aware the constitution spoke of a government “by the people.” He also asked in jest if Sethna would want to extend the franchise only to pipe smokers. (Sethna regularly puffs on a pipe.)
The WAPIZ members present in the court must have suffered palpitations when during the discussions on the definition of Parsi, Radha-krishnan counseled the community to “make amendments” to include the children of women married out. “The community will grow,” he said. In conceiving a male child “has the female no role to play? Why should she be denied (the right)?” he queried.
“Maternity is certain. Paternity is an assumption,” pitched in the BPP counsel Iqbal Chagla. Someone in the court added, “It’s a suspicion.” Amongst Jews, the race was perpetuated by the women, noted Chagla.
Radhakrishnan’s observations are particularly telling because for reasons best known to themselves, women married outside of the community have been hesitant to take their cause to court. Now a respected judge of the Bombay High Court was in fact asking the community to change its dogmatic approach.
Women may draw further inspiration from the present case. So many naysayers claimed the laws would never permit adult franchise for elections of the BPP trustees, that the donors’ rights were inviolate, and so on. Khanwilkar showed it could be done. Radhakrishnan and Mohta have also provided more than an inkling of how the judiciary thinks.
Is it not now time to take up cudgels and right another historic wrong?
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive