Haji Ali Dargah decides to grant access to women, finally

October 24, 2016

New Delhi, Oct 24: Women will be granted access to the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali shrine in Mumbai on par with men, the Dargah Trust told the Supreme Court today and sought four weeks to make the requisite infrastructural changes.

haji aliA bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao granted time to the trust and disposed off its appeal against the Bombay High Court order asking it to give equal access to women also.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the trust, said an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Dargah trust saying it is willing to allow women inside the shrine.

The apex court, on October 17, had extended the stay granted by Bombay High Court to facilitate an appeal against its decision to lift the ban on entry of women near the sanctum sanctorum of the Dargah in Mumbai.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had expressed hope that the Trust, which had challenged the high court judgement, "will take a stand which is progressive".

Subramanium, had also assured the bench that he was on a "progressive mission" and said all holy books and scriptures promoted equality and nothing which is regressive in character should be suggested.

The bench had also remarked that "if you are not allowing both men and women to go beyond a point, there is no problem. But if you are allowing some to go beyond a point while others are not, it is a problem."

The counsel, appearing for a women's group which has challenged the practice of the Trust not to allow women near the sanctum sanctorum, had submitted that the position was different before 2011 than what it is today.

The Trust moved the apex court challenging the Bombay High Court order lifting the ban on women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the renowned Muslim shrine in South Mumbai.

The High Court on August 26 had held that the ban imposed by the Trust on women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah, contravened Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution and said women should be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum like men.

The High Court had allowed a PIL filed by two women, Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz, from NGO Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, challenging the ban on women's entry into the sanctum sanctorum of the dargah from 2012.

It had granted a six-week stay on the order on a request by the Dargah Trust to enable it to appeal before the Supreme Court.

The high court had held that the Trust had no power to alter or modify the mode or manner of religious practices of any individual or any group.

The High Court in its 56-page judgement had also noted that the "right to manage the Trust cannot override the right to practice religion itself".

It had said the trust has not been able to justify the ban legally or otherwise. Hence it cannot be said that the prohibition was an essential and integral part of Islam and whether taking away that part of the practice would result in a fundamental change in the character of the religion or belief.

It had also refused to accept the Trust's justification that the ban was imposed for safety and security of women, in particular, to prevent sexual harassment at places of worship.

The Trust had claimed that the ban was in keeping with an order of the Supreme Court wherein stringent directions have been issued to ensure that there is no sexual harassment to women at places of worship.

The court had noted that the aims, objectives and activities of the Haji Ali Dargah Trust were not governed by any custom or tradition and held that it was a public charitable trust and hence, open to people all over the world, irrespective of their caste, creed or gender.

The Maharashtra government had earlier told the court that women should be barred from entering the inner sanctorum of Haji Ali Dargah only if it is so enshrined in the Quran.

Comments

Syed
 - 
Monday, 24 Oct 2016

Performing Dargah Pooja is unpardonable sin in Islam.

Rashid
 - 
Monday, 24 Oct 2016

visiting these graves (darghas) either by men or women is against islamic belief ... whatever the decision , won't make any difference to community

Abdul
 - 
Monday, 24 Oct 2016

Wrong Number!..
Worship creator, not his creation.

Rikaz
 - 
Monday, 24 Oct 2016

Abbiya, you misunderstood about the concept of performing umrah and Haj....visiting grave of anyone is not allowed and which is prohibited for ladies....performing umrah or haj is religious duty....once in a life time if a Muslim financially strong enough is bound to perform these religious obligations.,,,,

Well Wisher
 - 
Monday, 24 Oct 2016

The last paragraph is so funny. Maharashtra Govt. was right. \Aaneye illaandmyake Ambaari ellind bantu kanawwa?\" There is nothing mentioned in the Qur'an about Dargah. In fact, Dargah & Durgah are the 2 faces of the same coin. Idol worship is major sin (Shirk) in Islam. Prophet also denied women's entry to the grave yard. I request MH govt to completely shut the dargah. It is just a money making, sexual harassment center. No relation with Islam. It is nothing but a Mafia."

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
February 14,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 28,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 28: The Karnataka government on Saturday issued an order, directing private hospitals not to deny treatment to patients with coronavirus and COVID-19 like symptoms.

"Non-compliance of this order will attract punishment under sections of Disaster Management Act 2005," an order read.

Meanwhile, people coming from Maharashtra will be placed in seven-day institutional quarantine followed by seven-day home quarantine in Karnataka, the state government said.

People coming from other states will need to undergo 14-day home quarantine.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
April 30,2020

Newsroom, Apr 30: Beleaguered billionaire B R Shetty, who went into hiding after after a multi-billion fraud at UAE-based NMC Health came to light, has now put the blame on his companies employees.

The former chairman of the Abu Dhabi headquartered hospital operator said, investigations he commissioned found following things:

1. The fraudulent creation and operating of bank accounts in my name including many fraudulent transfers that I neither authorised, consented to, or had any knowledge of.

2. The fraudulent creation of loans, personal guarantees, cheques and bank transfers in my name, and using my forged signature, that I neither authorised, consented to, or had any knowledge of.

3. The creation and set-up of companies in my name that I neither authorised, consented to, or had any knowledge of, and that were seemingly created with the express intention to commit or conceal fraud.

4. The fraudulent creation of powers of attorney, and the misuse of existing powers of attorney, again in my name, that I that I neither authorised, consented to, or had any knowledge of.

5. The creation and provision to me of false and misleading financial statements and information regarding the performance of some of my private companies and investments by members of my own management team.

6. The payments of expenses using my private companies and personal bank accounts, I believe to hide the true financials of the public companies."

This is the first time Dr. Shetty, who is reportedly hiding in India for the last couple of months, issued a statement based on investigations he commissioned privately. He had brought in a consultancy to conduct it after initial revelations came to light that NMC Health had not been fully transparent with its finances.

Dr. Shetty had stepped down as executive chairman after the then Board of Directors barred him from attending any meetings. “I intend to work tirelessly to clear my name and assist any authorities in getting to the truth and help them ensure that misappropriated or missing funds are returned by the perpetrators to their rightful owners,” said Dr. Shetty.

This month, ADCB, which has the highest exposure among UAE banks to NMC Health, brought charges against five former officials, including ex-board of directors, with Abu Dhabi prosecution. The former CEOs of NMC Health and Finablr are also currently not in the UAE.

Comments

Kannadiga
 - 
Thursday, 30 Apr 2020

Can he explain give few wordd about Daniel Varghese  the founder of UAE exchange.

Who is the person shattered his fate .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.