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.
News Network
March 11,2020

Bengaluru, Mar 11: Heated verbal exchange between Minister K Sudhakar and former Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar in the assembly over disqualification of 17 MLAs last year, continued to disrupt the proceedings on Wednesday, with both opposition and treasury benches pushing for a privilege motion and demanding action.

Chaotic scenes and adjournments marked the House proceedings, with both sides not ready to budge.

As the House met for the day, around 11 am, senior Minister K S Eshwarappa accusing Congress MLA Ramesh Kumar of using "expletive" during a debate last evening, demanded his apology and that he be kept out of the proceedings.

Sudhakar, against whom expletive was allegedly used by Kumar, said, the words used were unpardonable and he should be heard, as he has given notice.

Leader of Opposition Siddaramaiah then demanded that he be allowed to speak first as he had given notice on Tuesday itself.

The Congress leader on his part has accused Sudhakar of breaching Kumar's privilege by allegedly making derogatory remarks against him.

Intervening, Speaker Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri said he has received breach of privilege notice from both sides and would allow it only after the question hour as per rules.

Though Congress expressed its agreement with the Speaker about letting them raise the matter after question hour, BJP legislators including Ministers said, Ramesh Kumar should be suspended.

Pointing out that Kumar was not inside the House, some ruling party MLAs even called him "escapist" and demanded action against him.

Strongly objecting to it, Siddaramaiah questioned the ruling party's intentions in running the house smoothly.

As this was followed by heated arguments between both sides, the Speaker adjourned the House for 15 minutes.

When the house met after much delay at 12:55 pm, the chaos continued.

As the Speaker allowed Minister Jagadish Shettar to speak, who was requesting permission to raise a point, Siddaramaiah objected to it and said he had given notice first.

He said, "this is not correct, it looks like government doesn't want the House to function, they don't want discussion on the budget, they are purposely blocking the proceedings of the House".

However, some BJP MLAs reacted to this by shouting slogans "shame shame Ramesh Kumar".

As his repeated attempts to conduct the proceedings failed, the Speaker adjourned the House for lunch.

Sudhakar, while speaking during a special discussion on the Constitution on Tuesday evening had made critical remarks against the decision of Kumar, as speaker, to disqualify 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs under the anti-defection law, including him.

Angered by this Kumar, who opposed discussion on the subject, amid heated argument between BJP and Congress members allegedly uttered the expletive, which aggravated the situation and had resulted in pandemonium in the House last evening.

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
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.
coastaldigest.com news network
June 28,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 28: Karnataka Minister for Medical Education Dr K Sudhakar faced criticism by netizens after he shared a TikTok video sent by his daughter and wife, who are currently undergoing treatment in a COVID-19 facility.

TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based internet technology company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming.

Dr Sudhakar’s father, his wife and daughter who tested positive for Covid-19 has been admitted to a designated facility and in order to make his birthday memorable, his daughter sent him greetings through TikTok video.

When the minister shared the TikTok video, people pointed out that the minister should know better and that he should urge his family to boycott the Chinese video-sharing platform and lead by example.

Many were miffed that a BJP leader put up a TikTok video at a time when tensions are running high between India and China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

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.