HC allows women's entry in Haji Ali dargah, order stayed for 6 weeks

August 26, 2016

New Delhi, Aug 26: In a significant judgement, the Bombay High Court today lifted the ban imposed on women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of Haji Ali dargah here, saying it contravenes the fundamental rights of a person.

Haji1

The court has, however, stayed its order for six weeks following a plea by Haji Ali Dargah Trust, which wants to challenge it in the Supreme Court.

"The ban imposed on women from entering the Haji Ali dargah is contrary to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 25 of the Constitution of India. Women should be permitted to enter the dargah on par with men," a division bench of Justices V M Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere said.

Under the said Articles, a person is guaranteed equality before law and has the fundamental right to practice any religion he or she wants. They prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, gender and so on, and provide freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

The bench allowed a PIL filed by two women, Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz, challenging the ban on women's entry in the sanctum sanctorum of the dargah.

"The state government and the Haji Ali Dargah Trust will have to take proper steps to ensure safety and security of women entering the dargah," the court said.

The high court had in June this year reserved its verdict on the petition.

The PIL states that gender justice is inherent in Quran and the decision contravenes the Hadith, which proves that there is no prohibition on women visiting graves.

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.

The ban on women's entry cannot be justified if it is on the basis of an expert's interpretation of the Quran, the then Maharashtra Advocate General Shrihari Aney had argued.

The dargah trust had defended its stand saying that it is referred in Quran that allowing women close proximity to the dargah of a male saint is a grievous sin.

Advocate Shoaib Memon, appearing for the trust had earlier said, "Women are not allowed inside mosques in Saudi Arabia. They are given a separate place to pray. We (trust) have not barred women. It is simply regulated for their safety. The trust not only administers the dargah but also manages the affairs of religion."

haji2

Comments

Rashid
 - 
Friday, 26 Aug 2016

Building structure on graves is prohibited in Islam, visiting such places by men or women both discouraged... It is a grave sin , invoke on graves...In islam it is permitted to men & women to visit graves of their relatives with proper dress with intention to pray for people of graves is permitted and even praying in masjid also permitted..

Mohammed
 - 
Friday, 26 Aug 2016

As a muslim to visit a dargah and pray is shirkh and I request all my muslim brothers and sisters to refrain from doing so as committing shirkh is the biggest sin in Islam. As for Rony`s comments as muslm`s did not support in independence it is high time you refresh your social studies subject. We all know how many muslim countries are supporting non-muslim brothers and sisters by giving them job in their countries in turn which helps them in survival and is this not much greater support from the muslims. This is Independence to live and survive. People grow up and be thankful for the number of muslim countries who have not objected to non-muslims working in their country and you have the audacity to talk against muslims without thinking once about the millions of non-muslim expats.

mohammad.n
 - 
Friday, 26 Aug 2016

Why HC and SC needed here? Our prophet muhammad already said that no grave must be built high, if u find one then u must level it to the ground. Thats it case closed already 1400+ years ago . Then why waste time of court and people who comment on such news? Check the whole quran and hadees you will never find something called darga in it.

Mohammed
 - 
Friday, 26 Aug 2016

To my non-muslim friends kindly note that in Masjid al haram (Makkah) both men and women pray together and for Ganesh Kamath Muslim women are allowed inside mosques and have a separate covered place from where they can pray behind the Imam. Kindly refrain from posting things which you do not have knowledge of and stick to only praying part of it and not compare it with women are not allowed to drive etc.

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
May 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

A.Rahman
 - 
Friday, 22 May 2020

First of all  A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

 

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

 

Over all it is the sign  of a profesional ; qualified  eligble  lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he  is. Am personally met him and  witnessed his court appearance  hope and wish him all the best and success .

 

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 14,2020

Mangaluru, Mar 14: Following the avian flu outbreak in neighboring Kerala, authorities at Pilikula Biological Park in Moodushedde, on the outskirts of the city, have taken all precautionary measures to prevent the death of birds in the park.

Park Director H J Jayaprakash Bhandari said that "the behaviour of the birds is being monitored near open water sources on the premises'.

Though no deaths were reported in the Zoo or on lake premises, the staff continue to maintain a strict vigil on open water sources like lakes. He said the Park was being sanitized.

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
March 6,2020

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.

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.