“Great service”

Noted Bombay counsel Navroz Seervai in an article in The Times of India of May 4, 2011 has applauded the parties who successfully fought for the two so called "renegade” priests banned by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi, the Godavra and Jokhi agiaries. "The appellants and the interveners have done great service to the Parsi community, and need to be commended. So too do their lawyers, led by the redoubtable Iqbal Chagla. They have braved calumny heaped upon them by the respondents, and those that espouse their cause. I am glad that these personal attacks did not deter the appellants, the interveners, or their lawyers from pursuing their cause. The judgment vindicates them full measure.”

"What then is the significance of the conclusions arrived in this landmark judgment?” inquires Seervai. "The two most significant are... One, it draws a clear distinction between secularity in a country like India and matters of religion, drawing as it does on the fundamental principles laid down in our constitution — principles which could well be said to reflect the wise counsel of Jesus, when he said: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s (St Matthew).’

"Two, it cuts through the clutter of specious religious arguments and emphasizes the essential distinction between race and religion — something that is regrettably often lost sight of.

Navroz Seervai: "a wakeup call”

"Furthermore, the judgment delivers a message to the community more powerful than the ruling itself — clearly it is a wakeup call for a community that is today suffering from lack of leadership and vision. It is apparent that the judges were horrified by the schisms being created by the leadership itself, of the minuscule Parsi community; and it contains a plaintive appeal for bodies like the Punchayet to be less divisive and more inclusive in their approach. This would be possible if the Punchayet dealt, as it is empowered to do, with secular issues, leaving it to individuals to conduct their own personal religious affairs. It is not a coincidence that when the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, the Bench expressed similar views, and sent the parties to the mediation of Sriram Panchu.”