Editorial Viewpoint
Fighting gender inequality
The Gujarat High Court (GHC) is a modern structure situated on sprawling grounds on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Spacious courtrooms, large passageways, manicured gardens, ample parking — but only for government authorities — characterize the complex fronting a broad motorway.
In the commercial heart of Gujarat a three-judge bench is hearing the case of Goolrookh Gupta, the spunky former resident of Valsad who challenged the arbitrary decision of the local anjuman to ban entry to the fire temple and doongerwadi structures to Parsi women married to non-Parsis. Though now residing in Bombay, Gupta is fearful that when her parents pass away she will be barred by the parochial Valsad Parsi Anjuman (VPA) from attending their funerary rites. The VPA legal costs are being borne by the Ahmedabad soft drink concentrate magnate Areez Khambatta so the trustees have nothing to lose by battling Gupta. Accompanied by VPA trustee Sam Chothia, Khambatta was in court periodically dozing off; Gupta was occasionally texting from her Blackberry.
Gupta’s lawyers Percy Kavina and Adil Mirza are arguing her writ petition pro bono — for the public good; the outcome of the case will determine the rights of the other unfortunate Parsi women of Valsad who have married outside the faith.
Seated on low rounded railings on one of the court’s open air patios amid lush greenery, Kavina explained to Parsiana that writs are normally entertained against state agencies “for incursion of the state… where the state denies rights,” but not against “non-state players” such as the VPA. But there were exceptions and where the case was of a public nature, writs could be invoked. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states every person has a right to practice, profess and propagate his/her religion. Gupta is “a private person performing a public duty,” the lawyer noted. The challenge was to convince the court it is “a public duty relating to the community as a whole.” As to why Kavina did not initiate an Originating Summons as had been so successfully done in the so-called “renegade” priests case before the Bombay High Court, he explained that the Gujarat court had no originating jurisdiction. He noted that the Chief Justice of the GHC had constituted the three-member bench and directed them to hear the matter.
Would this not open a floodgate of similar applications? we inquired. The Supreme Court was dismissive of such fears, he replied. If persons have legal rights it would do “violence to jurisprudence” to deny them those rights. Every case may not fit the requirements for filing a writ but that was no ground to deny justice to those who deserved relief.
The VPA affidavit-in-reply to Gupta’s petition states that “Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India is subject to the other provisions of Part-III thereof and subject to the rights of every denomination under Article 26.”
Though Gupta’s father Adi Contractor is one of the VPA trustees he is unfortunately in a minority group of four as versus the five who support the odious ban. The majority contend that when a woman marries out of the community she ceases to be a Parsi Zoroastrian. As usual the four high priests who rubber stamp all retrograde and obscurant measures advocated by their lay mentors supported the ban. “If she had a genuine desire to retain her religion she would not have decided on her own will to marry outside the community,” stated Dasturs (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, (Dr) Firoze Kotwal, (Dr) Peshotan Mirza and Cyrus Dastur. The ban has also been endorsed by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) controlled Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) and even the ever popularity-seeking Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees. At the FPZAI meeting held in Valsad in March this year, BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta lauded the Valsad anjuman on its resolution.
Thus it was edifying to be in a court where logical, rational and legally sound arguments have to be made to decide contentious issues. The judges gave a patient and sympathetic hearing to Kavina, even permitting him to interrupt their observations.
Courts of law are the final arbiters on the interpretation of the Constitution and all parties are bound by their decisions. But regardless of the outcome one has to admire the determinedness of a Goolrookh Gupta or a Roshni Maloo who, despite facing great odds, battle for a cause they believe in. For Maloo it was the right to publicly celebrate the navjote of her children. Gupta’s petition pertains to her prerogative to attend her parents’ funerals whenever that may be. Both are perceptive businesswomen. Gupta combined her trip to Ahmedabad with an inspection of some real estate investment she was contemplating along with shopping for a sari. Some of her property investments have paid off handsomely. Maloo runs a travel agency and other businesses.
Both took up cudgels because their families were being affected. A hostile establishment turned on them. But mercifully there are enough right thinking people both within the community and without who rallied to their support. Several anjumans and individuals have issued letters to Gupta stating their agiaries permit entry to Parsi women who continue to profess the Zoroastrian religion after marrying outside the faith under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Kavina and Mirza are sacrificing their income for the cause of Parsi women’s rights. In the renegade priests case lawyers Iqbal Chagla, Edul Bharucha, Fredoon Devitre, Jimmy Avasia, Roshni Dastur and others fought without charge; Jamsheed Kanga and Homi Khusrokhan became the petitioners for the priests. The BPP has spent well over a crore of rupees of community money to justify their ill-conceived ban. Numerous other lawyers are fighting public interest litigations to ensure that people’s fundamental rights are not trampled on.
Regardless of the legal outcome, just fighting the good fight is a victory not only for the people concerned but the entire community and finally the survival of Zoroastrianism itself.
In the commercial heart of Gujarat a three-judge bench is hearing the case of Goolrookh Gupta, the spunky former resident of Valsad who challenged the arbitrary decision of the local anjuman to ban entry to the fire temple and doongerwadi structures to Parsi women married to non-Parsis. Though now residing in Bombay, Gupta is fearful that when her parents pass away she will be barred by the parochial Valsad Parsi Anjuman (VPA) from attending their funerary rites. The VPA legal costs are being borne by the Ahmedabad soft drink concentrate magnate Areez Khambatta so the trustees have nothing to lose by battling Gupta. Accompanied by VPA trustee Sam Chothia, Khambatta was in court periodically dozing off; Gupta was occasionally texting from her Blackberry.
Gupta’s lawyers Percy Kavina and Adil Mirza are arguing her writ petition pro bono — for the public good; the outcome of the case will determine the rights of the other unfortunate Parsi women of Valsad who have married outside the faith.
Seated on low rounded railings on one of the court’s open air patios amid lush greenery, Kavina explained to Parsiana that writs are normally entertained against state agencies “for incursion of the state… where the state denies rights,” but not against “non-state players” such as the VPA. But there were exceptions and where the case was of a public nature, writs could be invoked. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states every person has a right to practice, profess and propagate his/her religion. Gupta is “a private person performing a public duty,” the lawyer noted. The challenge was to convince the court it is “a public duty relating to the community as a whole.” As to why Kavina did not initiate an Originating Summons as had been so successfully done in the so-called “renegade” priests case before the Bombay High Court, he explained that the Gujarat court had no originating jurisdiction. He noted that the Chief Justice of the GHC had constituted the three-member bench and directed them to hear the matter.
Would this not open a floodgate of similar applications? we inquired. The Supreme Court was dismissive of such fears, he replied. If persons have legal rights it would do “violence to jurisprudence” to deny them those rights. Every case may not fit the requirements for filing a writ but that was no ground to deny justice to those who deserved relief.
The VPA affidavit-in-reply to Gupta’s petition states that “Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India is subject to the other provisions of Part-III thereof and subject to the rights of every denomination under Article 26.”
Though Gupta’s father Adi Contractor is one of the VPA trustees he is unfortunately in a minority group of four as versus the five who support the odious ban. The majority contend that when a woman marries out of the community she ceases to be a Parsi Zoroastrian. As usual the four high priests who rubber stamp all retrograde and obscurant measures advocated by their lay mentors supported the ban. “If she had a genuine desire to retain her religion she would not have decided on her own will to marry outside the community,” stated Dasturs (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, (Dr) Firoze Kotwal, (Dr) Peshotan Mirza and Cyrus Dastur. The ban has also been endorsed by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) controlled Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) and even the ever popularity-seeking Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees. At the FPZAI meeting held in Valsad in March this year, BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta lauded the Valsad anjuman on its resolution.
Thus it was edifying to be in a court where logical, rational and legally sound arguments have to be made to decide contentious issues. The judges gave a patient and sympathetic hearing to Kavina, even permitting him to interrupt their observations.
Courts of law are the final arbiters on the interpretation of the Constitution and all parties are bound by their decisions. But regardless of the outcome one has to admire the determinedness of a Goolrookh Gupta or a Roshni Maloo who, despite facing great odds, battle for a cause they believe in. For Maloo it was the right to publicly celebrate the navjote of her children. Gupta’s petition pertains to her prerogative to attend her parents’ funerals whenever that may be. Both are perceptive businesswomen. Gupta combined her trip to Ahmedabad with an inspection of some real estate investment she was contemplating along with shopping for a sari. Some of her property investments have paid off handsomely. Maloo runs a travel agency and other businesses.
Both took up cudgels because their families were being affected. A hostile establishment turned on them. But mercifully there are enough right thinking people both within the community and without who rallied to their support. Several anjumans and individuals have issued letters to Gupta stating their agiaries permit entry to Parsi women who continue to profess the Zoroastrian religion after marrying outside the faith under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Kavina and Mirza are sacrificing their income for the cause of Parsi women’s rights. In the renegade priests case lawyers Iqbal Chagla, Edul Bharucha, Fredoon Devitre, Jimmy Avasia, Roshni Dastur and others fought without charge; Jamsheed Kanga and Homi Khusrokhan became the petitioners for the priests. The BPP has spent well over a crore of rupees of community money to justify their ill-conceived ban. Numerous other lawyers are fighting public interest litigations to ensure that people’s fundamental rights are not trampled on.
Regardless of the legal outcome, just fighting the good fight is a victory not only for the people concerned but the entire community and finally the survival of Zoroastrianism itself.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive