Editorial Viewpoint
The law, lawyers and laymen
Sitting in a courtroom during contentious community related legal disputes can be a frustrating experience. Often one hears statements that are factually incorrect or so distorted that it takes great self control not to stand up and blurt out the correct position. But aside from risking a notice of contempt, the greater danger lies in subverting the course of justice.
The judicial setup is such that lawyers who are well versed in the law and its technicalities argue on behalf of laypeople on a range of subjects with which they may or may not be conversant. One often sees a litigant sidle up to the lawyer during a hearing, tugging at his/her robe to catch attention, whispering in his/her ear or passing on a note. The layperson may know the facts of the case but not the law nor courtroom craft. It is the skill of the counsel, his/her persuasive abilities, knowledge of the law, the recollection of facts and the ability to marshal them when required that usually determines the outcome of the case. Often dedicated lawyers fight for a just cause without charging.
Thus even the economically and socially disadvantaged litigant stands a chance against a more powerful, better represented and moneyed opponent. An honest, perceptive and probing judge, interested in seeing justice delivered, swings the balance in favor of the deserving litigant.
In Goolrookh Gupta’s case, an advocate for the Valsad residents told the three-member bench of the Gujarat High Court that the high priests were the most qualified people to comment on religious texts and there were no other scholars in their league. He obviously had not heard of the groundbreaking work done by western and Indian scholars to decipher and translate the various Zoroastrian texts from Avestan, Pahlavi and other languages. He was oblivious to the scholarship of people like C. Bartholomae, J. Darmesteter, H. W. Bailey, Anquetil du Perron, J. Duchesne-Guillemin, R. C. Zaehner, K. R. Cama, J. J. Modi, Irach Taraporewala, Richard Frye, Martin Haug, L. H. Mills, Dastur Maneck Dhalla, Maneck Kanga, Mary Boyce, Stanley Insler, John Hinnells, Prod Oktor Skjaervo and even PhD students like Dan Sheffield who knows 18 languages and has spent months in Navsari examining old manuscripts.
Our contemporary priests of whom only one now writes academic papers on the religion, focus on manuscripts and rituals. The broad canvas of the religion is left untouched.
The high priests in their affidavit supporting the ban by the Valsad Parsi Anjuman on entry to the local fire temple and Doongerwadi for Parsi women married to non-Parsis were unable to cite a single religious text that forbids a Parsi Zoroastrian marrying a non-Parsi. Twice or thrice their lordships inquired if there was any scriptural evidence barring such unions. The weak answer offered was that of our famed 21 Nasks, only one survived, the Khordeh Avesta, and that too only in part; the remainder were destroyed by the conquering Alexander, the ravages of time and nature. The amicus curiae also emphasized that the dasturs were the final authority on interpreting the scriptures but admitted there were diverse points of view regarding the contents of the texts.
So also on the issue of conversion to Zoroastrianism, our high priests have been unable to substantiate their contention that it is forbidden by the religion. Their obdurate stand comes in face of the Bombay High Court (BHC) judgment in the landmark Parsi Punchayet case of 1908 which stated after hearing countless witnesses, including eminent scholars and priests, that “Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion.” One of the two judges was an orthodox Parsi, Sir Dinshaw Davar.
Jamsheed Kanga, a former trustee of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), has also written extensively and knowledgeably on the issue of conversion from the legal and theological aspects. His attempts to get the high priests to cite their scriptural sources on the ban to conversion have come to naught.
On the subject of women being permitted to become Zoroastrian priests as has recently been done in Iran, the high priests Parsiana approached either did not respond or if they did, did not cite any scriptures to support their contention that it was contrary to Zoroastrianism. Scholars Ali Jafarey and Farrokh Vajifdar in contrast, cited various passages from ancient religious texts to corroborate their assertion that women were and could be priests.
In the matter of the so-called “renegade” priests case, lawyers such as Iqbal Chagla and Rafiq Dada representing the opposing parties had to wade through stacks of papers to develop a grasp of the intricacies regarding the Zoroastrian priesthood. Chagla rightly pointed out there is no such thing as a low or high priest. What he meant was that each category of priest was of equal importance. A trustee of the BPP is not superior to a khandhia or nassessalar because both are essential for the smooth functioning of the apex trust (though some may question the contribution of the former). The WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarathushtis) Page lambasted Chagla for his observation and in turn drew a reprimand from the bench.
Parsi lawyers no doubt have an advantage over their non-Parsi counterparts when presenting a case pertaining to the community. But Chagla is married to a Parsi and Dada has appeared on so many occasions on behalf of the beleaguered BPP trustees that he is well versed in community intricacies and eccentricities. In the priests’ case both sides were assisted by a host of Parsi lawyers. The lawyers representing the petition on behalf of the two priests fought the case pro bono — without charge.
But as much as the lawyers and the litigants, it was the pluck of the judges, Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud and Ashok Mohta that swung the verdict in favor of the petitioners. Chandrachud admitted in court they may err in passing judgment but they felt compelled to give a verdict, not shy away from one as had been done by the single judge.
Some of the high priests have attempted to join themselves in the BPP’s appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court striking down the ban. Depending on the outcome of the seemingly never ending, mediation process, the Supreme Court may have to decide on whether they can be co-joined or not. We can only keep our fingers crossed that the dasturs don’t end up cutting a sorry figure before the highest court in the land
After the Goolrookh Gupta hearings in Ahmedabad when Parsiana asked her senior counsel Percy Kavina what he felt the possible outcome could be, he replied, “Ask me three minutes after the judgment comes out. I’ve been too long in this game” to try and predict the judges’ minds. Kavina and his co-counsels represented Gupta without charge.
The petitioner and the respondents have had the best legal minds arguing their case and a sympathetic and patient bench giving them a hearing. All parties in the litigation put in considerable time, money and effort. Whatever the judgment, the process itself instills confidence in a system that though ofttimes long drawn, tedious and expensive, delivers justice in the end.
The judicial setup is such that lawyers who are well versed in the law and its technicalities argue on behalf of laypeople on a range of subjects with which they may or may not be conversant. One often sees a litigant sidle up to the lawyer during a hearing, tugging at his/her robe to catch attention, whispering in his/her ear or passing on a note. The layperson may know the facts of the case but not the law nor courtroom craft. It is the skill of the counsel, his/her persuasive abilities, knowledge of the law, the recollection of facts and the ability to marshal them when required that usually determines the outcome of the case. Often dedicated lawyers fight for a just cause without charging.
Thus even the economically and socially disadvantaged litigant stands a chance against a more powerful, better represented and moneyed opponent. An honest, perceptive and probing judge, interested in seeing justice delivered, swings the balance in favor of the deserving litigant.
In Goolrookh Gupta’s case, an advocate for the Valsad residents told the three-member bench of the Gujarat High Court that the high priests were the most qualified people to comment on religious texts and there were no other scholars in their league. He obviously had not heard of the groundbreaking work done by western and Indian scholars to decipher and translate the various Zoroastrian texts from Avestan, Pahlavi and other languages. He was oblivious to the scholarship of people like C. Bartholomae, J. Darmesteter, H. W. Bailey, Anquetil du Perron, J. Duchesne-Guillemin, R. C. Zaehner, K. R. Cama, J. J. Modi, Irach Taraporewala, Richard Frye, Martin Haug, L. H. Mills, Dastur Maneck Dhalla, Maneck Kanga, Mary Boyce, Stanley Insler, John Hinnells, Prod Oktor Skjaervo and even PhD students like Dan Sheffield who knows 18 languages and has spent months in Navsari examining old manuscripts.
Our contemporary priests of whom only one now writes academic papers on the religion, focus on manuscripts and rituals. The broad canvas of the religion is left untouched.
The high priests in their affidavit supporting the ban by the Valsad Parsi Anjuman on entry to the local fire temple and Doongerwadi for Parsi women married to non-Parsis were unable to cite a single religious text that forbids a Parsi Zoroastrian marrying a non-Parsi. Twice or thrice their lordships inquired if there was any scriptural evidence barring such unions. The weak answer offered was that of our famed 21 Nasks, only one survived, the Khordeh Avesta, and that too only in part; the remainder were destroyed by the conquering Alexander, the ravages of time and nature. The amicus curiae also emphasized that the dasturs were the final authority on interpreting the scriptures but admitted there were diverse points of view regarding the contents of the texts.
So also on the issue of conversion to Zoroastrianism, our high priests have been unable to substantiate their contention that it is forbidden by the religion. Their obdurate stand comes in face of the Bombay High Court (BHC) judgment in the landmark Parsi Punchayet case of 1908 which stated after hearing countless witnesses, including eminent scholars and priests, that “Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion.” One of the two judges was an orthodox Parsi, Sir Dinshaw Davar.
Jamsheed Kanga, a former trustee of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), has also written extensively and knowledgeably on the issue of conversion from the legal and theological aspects. His attempts to get the high priests to cite their scriptural sources on the ban to conversion have come to naught.
On the subject of women being permitted to become Zoroastrian priests as has recently been done in Iran, the high priests Parsiana approached either did not respond or if they did, did not cite any scriptures to support their contention that it was contrary to Zoroastrianism. Scholars Ali Jafarey and Farrokh Vajifdar in contrast, cited various passages from ancient religious texts to corroborate their assertion that women were and could be priests.
In the matter of the so-called “renegade” priests case, lawyers such as Iqbal Chagla and Rafiq Dada representing the opposing parties had to wade through stacks of papers to develop a grasp of the intricacies regarding the Zoroastrian priesthood. Chagla rightly pointed out there is no such thing as a low or high priest. What he meant was that each category of priest was of equal importance. A trustee of the BPP is not superior to a khandhia or nassessalar because both are essential for the smooth functioning of the apex trust (though some may question the contribution of the former). The WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarathushtis) Page lambasted Chagla for his observation and in turn drew a reprimand from the bench.
Parsi lawyers no doubt have an advantage over their non-Parsi counterparts when presenting a case pertaining to the community. But Chagla is married to a Parsi and Dada has appeared on so many occasions on behalf of the beleaguered BPP trustees that he is well versed in community intricacies and eccentricities. In the priests’ case both sides were assisted by a host of Parsi lawyers. The lawyers representing the petition on behalf of the two priests fought the case pro bono — without charge.
But as much as the lawyers and the litigants, it was the pluck of the judges, Dr Dhananjay Chandrachud and Ashok Mohta that swung the verdict in favor of the petitioners. Chandrachud admitted in court they may err in passing judgment but they felt compelled to give a verdict, not shy away from one as had been done by the single judge.
Some of the high priests have attempted to join themselves in the BPP’s appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court striking down the ban. Depending on the outcome of the seemingly never ending, mediation process, the Supreme Court may have to decide on whether they can be co-joined or not. We can only keep our fingers crossed that the dasturs don’t end up cutting a sorry figure before the highest court in the land
After the Goolrookh Gupta hearings in Ahmedabad when Parsiana asked her senior counsel Percy Kavina what he felt the possible outcome could be, he replied, “Ask me three minutes after the judgment comes out. I’ve been too long in this game” to try and predict the judges’ minds. Kavina and his co-counsels represented Gupta without charge.
The petitioner and the respondents have had the best legal minds arguing their case and a sympathetic and patient bench giving them a hearing. All parties in the litigation put in considerable time, money and effort. Whatever the judgment, the process itself instills confidence in a system that though ofttimes long drawn, tedious and expensive, delivers justice in the end.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive