Editorial Viewpoint
Teaching the trustees
The excellent judgment delivered by the divisional bench of the Bombay High Court is due in large measure to the efforts of a battery of lawyers led by noted counsel Iqbal Chagla. The strategy of approaching the court with an Originating Summons (OS) as versus a full-fledged suit and asking the court to interpret the powers conferred on the trustees by the trust deed was largely Chagla’s. It was a gamble. Justice V. M. Kanade had declined to rule on the case advising the petitioners to file a suit instead. He pointed to the contentious religious issues raised by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) counsel Rafiq Dada.
But Chagla was firm that he would not be drawn into that line of argument. In the end, his approach prevailed. But it was the additional inputs provided by counsels Edul Bharucha and Jimmy Avasia regarding specific abuses of power by the trustees that must have weighed with the judges when deciding on the matter.
Justice Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud was appalled at the attack on Chagla in the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page during the pendency of the suit before the single judge last year. Extracts from The BPP Review were read out berating former Supreme Court judge Sam Variava and former solicitor general Tehmtan Andhyarujina for attending a BPP hosted function to felicitate the new Chief Justice of India Sarosh Kapadia, on June 19, 2010. Andhyarujina’s offense was that he had joined the interveners who sided with the two petitioners, former Bombay municipal commissioner and erstwhile BPP trustee Jamsheed Kanga and former Glaxo managing director and Tata director Homi Khusrokhan. And Variava was rebuked because his wife, Dilnavaz, was one of the interveners supporting Kanga and Khusrokhan.
For those who follow community affairs such reproaches are common. But to secular judges steeped in the profession’s ethics, the affront to fellow jurists — for no other reason than following the dictates of their conscience — was distressing.
Chagla, Fredoon DeVitre, Avasia, Bharucha, Karl Tamboly, Yugandhara Khanwilkar, Rashna Dastur of Dastur, Dadhich and Kalambi, and Kartikeya and Associates all fought the case pro bono. The BPP in turn shelled out Rs 50,00,000 from community coffers to fight the case before the single judge. Another Rs 25,00,000 must have been spent for the appeal before the divisional bench. Should the BPP appeal to the Supreme Court the expenses would likely amount to more than a crore (US$ 2,22,222). To what purpose? Kanga and Khusrokhan fought to uphold a principle. It was not their livelihood that was at stake. They battled not only on behalf of the priests but also all beneficiaries. Though one of the two priests, Ervad Framroze Mirza filed an affidavit stating he supported the ban — while the other Ervad Khushroo Madon remained steadfast — Chagla explained to the court that what was at stake was the right of the beneficiaries to appoint a priest of his/her choice. An infringement of that right meant any trustees could dictate to any beneficiary which priest they could select or not.
The lessons of the judgment should not be lost on the high priests. They cannot continue to function as though the community still lives in the times when Justice Dinshaw Davar in 1908 delivered his judgment bristling with racism in the historic Parsi Punchayet Case. Times have changed, Justices Chandrachud and Anoop Mohta noted in their judgment. Do the high priests then want to be viewed as being retrograde, as puppets of WAPIZ and any other orthodox group that goes running to them with a prepared letter asking them to endorse some obscurantist, sexist or racist point of view? Already the WAPIZ Page says the Zoroastrian religion does not preach equality between the sexes.
In Valsad at the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meet on March 12 and 13, 2011 a smug Valsad Parsi Anjuman (VPA) trustee Marzban Dhanbhoora told a sizable audience at an evening function that though legal costs were proving a financial strain on the Anjuman, he was confident their stand on barring entry to Parsi women married to non-Parsis had “good prospects.” A former Valsad resident Goolrookh Gupta has challenged the ban in the Ahmedabad High Court. When asked after the talk by Parsiana what he meant by “good prospects,” he replied, “No comment. The matter is sub judice.”
BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta addressing the same gathering said he had some “happy news” to convey to the Valsad Parsis. “A high priest” in Bombay had told him the night before at a function that he had proof Gupta had converted, undergone a Hindu marriage ceremony and her tax returns were filed under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) category. Pray, how does one convert to Hinduism? And if participation in a marriage ceremony amounts to conversion, then every time the ashirwad ceremony is performed on an interfaith couple, the non-Parsi spouse would become a Zoroastrian. No navjote would be required. Similarly the filing of income tax could amount to a change of faith [if Parsis lobbied for a Parsi Divided (the word “united” being anathema to most Parsis) Family tax status then even the non-Parsi spouses and children would be considered Parsis. The Davar-Beaman judgment deciding who is a Parsi would be redundant.] A conversion is supposed to be effected when the concerned person makes a public statement to that effect — not by getting married or filing tax returns! Gupta on the contrary has stated in her affidavit to the court she is a Parsi practicing the Zoroastrian faith.
The community leadership in Bombay and Valsad has still to comprehend the full ramifications of the Bombay High Court ruling in the priests case. If trustees do not have the power under the trust deed to exclude duly ordained Parsi Zoroastrian priests’ at Doongerwadi, the Godavra and Jokhi agiaries what right will the VPA have to bar entry to a Parsi Zoroastrian beneficiary? The writing is on the wall. Our leaders have to be taught how to read it.
But Chagla was firm that he would not be drawn into that line of argument. In the end, his approach prevailed. But it was the additional inputs provided by counsels Edul Bharucha and Jimmy Avasia regarding specific abuses of power by the trustees that must have weighed with the judges when deciding on the matter.
Justice Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud was appalled at the attack on Chagla in the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page during the pendency of the suit before the single judge last year. Extracts from The BPP Review were read out berating former Supreme Court judge Sam Variava and former solicitor general Tehmtan Andhyarujina for attending a BPP hosted function to felicitate the new Chief Justice of India Sarosh Kapadia, on June 19, 2010. Andhyarujina’s offense was that he had joined the interveners who sided with the two petitioners, former Bombay municipal commissioner and erstwhile BPP trustee Jamsheed Kanga and former Glaxo managing director and Tata director Homi Khusrokhan. And Variava was rebuked because his wife, Dilnavaz, was one of the interveners supporting Kanga and Khusrokhan.
For those who follow community affairs such reproaches are common. But to secular judges steeped in the profession’s ethics, the affront to fellow jurists — for no other reason than following the dictates of their conscience — was distressing.
Chagla, Fredoon DeVitre, Avasia, Bharucha, Karl Tamboly, Yugandhara Khanwilkar, Rashna Dastur of Dastur, Dadhich and Kalambi, and Kartikeya and Associates all fought the case pro bono. The BPP in turn shelled out Rs 50,00,000 from community coffers to fight the case before the single judge. Another Rs 25,00,000 must have been spent for the appeal before the divisional bench. Should the BPP appeal to the Supreme Court the expenses would likely amount to more than a crore (US$ 2,22,222). To what purpose? Kanga and Khusrokhan fought to uphold a principle. It was not their livelihood that was at stake. They battled not only on behalf of the priests but also all beneficiaries. Though one of the two priests, Ervad Framroze Mirza filed an affidavit stating he supported the ban — while the other Ervad Khushroo Madon remained steadfast — Chagla explained to the court that what was at stake was the right of the beneficiaries to appoint a priest of his/her choice. An infringement of that right meant any trustees could dictate to any beneficiary which priest they could select or not.
The lessons of the judgment should not be lost on the high priests. They cannot continue to function as though the community still lives in the times when Justice Dinshaw Davar in 1908 delivered his judgment bristling with racism in the historic Parsi Punchayet Case. Times have changed, Justices Chandrachud and Anoop Mohta noted in their judgment. Do the high priests then want to be viewed as being retrograde, as puppets of WAPIZ and any other orthodox group that goes running to them with a prepared letter asking them to endorse some obscurantist, sexist or racist point of view? Already the WAPIZ Page says the Zoroastrian religion does not preach equality between the sexes.
In Valsad at the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meet on March 12 and 13, 2011 a smug Valsad Parsi Anjuman (VPA) trustee Marzban Dhanbhoora told a sizable audience at an evening function that though legal costs were proving a financial strain on the Anjuman, he was confident their stand on barring entry to Parsi women married to non-Parsis had “good prospects.” A former Valsad resident Goolrookh Gupta has challenged the ban in the Ahmedabad High Court. When asked after the talk by Parsiana what he meant by “good prospects,” he replied, “No comment. The matter is sub judice.”
BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta addressing the same gathering said he had some “happy news” to convey to the Valsad Parsis. “A high priest” in Bombay had told him the night before at a function that he had proof Gupta had converted, undergone a Hindu marriage ceremony and her tax returns were filed under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) category. Pray, how does one convert to Hinduism? And if participation in a marriage ceremony amounts to conversion, then every time the ashirwad ceremony is performed on an interfaith couple, the non-Parsi spouse would become a Zoroastrian. No navjote would be required. Similarly the filing of income tax could amount to a change of faith [if Parsis lobbied for a Parsi Divided (the word “united” being anathema to most Parsis) Family tax status then even the non-Parsi spouses and children would be considered Parsis. The Davar-Beaman judgment deciding who is a Parsi would be redundant.] A conversion is supposed to be effected when the concerned person makes a public statement to that effect — not by getting married or filing tax returns! Gupta on the contrary has stated in her affidavit to the court she is a Parsi practicing the Zoroastrian faith.
The community leadership in Bombay and Valsad has still to comprehend the full ramifications of the Bombay High Court ruling in the priests case. If trustees do not have the power under the trust deed to exclude duly ordained Parsi Zoroastrian priests’ at Doongerwadi, the Godavra and Jokhi agiaries what right will the VPA have to bar entry to a Parsi Zoroastrian beneficiary? The writing is on the wall. Our leaders have to be taught how to read it.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive