Goolrookh judgment

This refers to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the petition filed by Goolrookh Gupta (née Contractor). Justices Jayant Patel and Rashmin Chhaya held that though it was a marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), Gupta should be treated as having professed the religion of her husband in the absence of a declaration, which requires an elaborate inquiry by a competent court.

The stand taken by Patel and Chhaya raises an important question. What would happen if a non-Parsi woman marries a Parsi-Zoroastrian under the SMA and makes no declaration of continuing to abide by the religion of her birth? This very judgment would imply that the non-Parsi woman has professed the religion of her husband and is therefore deemed to be a Parsi Zoroastrian. If yes, the judgment is fair. If no, it smacks of double standards. It logically follows that if the fire temples and the towers of silence prevent such a non-Parsi lady from entering their premises, they would be in contempt of court.

Further, would the judgment consider a change in the religion of a non-Parsi man if he married a Parsi Zoroastrian woman under the SMA and professed a change in his religion?

Our society still suffers from a gender bias in favor of men. Religious leaders and self styled scholars are not expected to take rational decisions, whereas a fair and learned judiciary must do so at all times.

Concluding his judgment, Justice Akil Kureshi said "all reforms start with a humble beginning.” The beginning has certainly been made. It was John Burke who pointed out that the march of the human intellect is slow. No matter how slow, the wheels of progress must be kept moving by the implementation of rational thought.

FEROZE N. PATCH