6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala
COMMENTARY / RELIGION Why a PIL on women’s entry at the Nizamuddin dargah cannot be compared to Sabarimala MOHSIN ALAM BHAT
04 June 2019
SARAVANA BHARATHI FOR THE CARAVAN
On 6 Decem er 2018, three female law tudent from Pune led a pu licintere t litigation in the Delhi high court, eeking the entr of women (http ://www.livelaw.in/pilindelhihc eekingentr ofwomenintonizamuddin dargahreadpetition/) to the inner precinct of the Hazrat Nizamuddin Auli a dargah in the capital. The PIL wa led arel week after a vejudge ench of the upreme Court lifted the an on women’ entr (http ://www. upremecourto ndia.nic.in/ upremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgem https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 1/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala ep2018.pd ) into the a arimala temple in Kerala. videntl , the a arimala judgement ha had a ca cading e ect (http ://www.livemint.com/politic /new / c i ue noticeonpleaforentr ofmu limwomenintomo que 1555441362136.html), with the upreme Court now hearing another PIL (http :// arand ench.com/wpcontent/upload /2019/04/Mu limwomen Mo que.pd ), led a Mu lim couple, demanding that the prohi ition on the entr of Mu lim women in an mo que e declared illegal in India.
Hi toricall , policie of ocial reform (http :// ook .google.co.in/ ook ? hl=en&lr=&id=8zXWCgAAQ AJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=religion+%22 ocial+reform%22+te entr +india+con titution&ot =wxqdf i& ig=c5ltaIpeu Mgzrx34c_MkviRkY#v=onep entr %20india%20c) have ari en from the political ranche of the tate. Throughout the 1950 and the 1960 , a wave of ocialreform legi lation created a tate upervi ed infra tructure that managed prominent religiou in titution and removed ca te a ed re triction on entr (http :// ook .google.co.in/ ook ? hl=en&lr=&id=8zXWCgAAQ AJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=religion+%22 ocial+reform%22+te entr +india+con titution&ot =wxqdf i& ig=c5ltaIpeu Mgzrx34c_MkviRkY#v=onep entr %20india%20c). ut in the la t few ear , the court eem to have ecome the chief interlocutor in the ocialreform proce , rai ing enthu ia m for the judicial proce a it main mode.
However, there i a deep and unre olved ten ion at the centre of our con titutional practice. We care a out religiou freedom—the right of individual and group to autonomou l conduct their religiou live and practice . ut our con titution al o require that we e en itive to removing the entrenched practice of u ordination and domination. The e two value are often in con ict.
The pro lem i not that the practice of organi ed religion are inherentl hierarchical and exclu ionar . Religion di criminate again t gender and cla e to re trict acce to religiou pace or religiou o ce , exclude certain ocial relation from religiou recognition and follow practice that manife t a deepl patriarchal culture. If that were the pro lem, then reform would require mo t of what we know a religion toda to give wa to tate intervention.
https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 2/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala Rather, the pro lem i that religiou practice in India have a material and m olic impact on excluded individual and group , far e ond the act of wor hip. Religion in India ha con equence for people’ civic right and their right to live with dignit . The con titutionframer recogni ed thi and con equentl regarded religion a one of the crucial domain of reform. The con titution not onl prohi it the tate from di criminating on the ground of ca te, religion or ex, ut al o empower it to reform Hindu religiou in titution and criminali e a horrent practice , like untoucha ilit .
ut there are good rea on to e uita l circum pect a out the court driving ocial reform. Thi i not onl ecau e ocial reform i politicall ri k , a ecame evident from the reaction (http ://thewire.in/politic /politic of a arimalaaftermath c verdict) to the a arimala verdict, ut al o ecau e court mu t work within the con traint of legal principle and rea oning. The mu t how that the have given due regard to all the con titutional value at take, even if the are in ten ion with each other, and deliver a legall tena le re ult independent of the judge ’ per onal view . The PIL demanding the opening of the inner anctum at the Nizamuddin dargah to women em odie the e challenge .
The de cendant of the u aint Muhammad Nizamuddin Auli a conduct religiou ceremonie at the dargah under the guidance of the Anjuman Peerzadgan Nizami a Khu rawi Coordination Committee—an organi ation compri ed of the direct de cendant of the aint who handle the running and maintenance of the hrine. The Nizamuddin Dargah Tru t—which handle the nancial a air of the hrine along with the committee—ha no power over the e cu tom . While women are free to acce the hrine, the are not permitted in ide the mall inner room that hou e the aint’ grave. A an vi itor to the hrine will te tif , thi doe not come in the wa of women participating in other facet of wor hip. Women u uall it around the room, facing the anctum anctorum while o ering pra er .
hould religiou in titution e made to re pect egalitarian value in all their practice ? What i the limit for tate intervention? And how hould thi con ict e re olved while eing equall re pectful to oth the value ? The an wer to the e https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 3/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala que tion are contingent on the context. The legal a e ment of egalitarian claim in religiou practice cannot generali e, de pite the temptation to do o, and mu t make nuanced di tinction a ed on the nature of religiou cu tom and the hi torical role of tate in titution .
The Nizamuddin dargah ca e di er markedl from the a arimala ca e. The a arimala temple i governed legi lation—the Kerala Place of Pu lic Wor hip (Authorization of ntr ) Act, 1965—which i a ed, in part, on the con titutional mandate of opening Hindu place of wor hip to “all ection and cla e of Hindu .” Thi antica te value, derived from the con titution, wa meant to override all the contrar religiou cu tom .
De pite thi legi lation, in 1991, the Kerala government pa ed a rule (http ://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915943/) recogni ing the cu tom and practice that re tricted women etween the age of 10 and 50 ear from wor hipping at a arimala. In the a arimala ca e, which challenged thi rule, the judge did not o er uniform rea oning—three opinion held the exclu ion uncon titutional and one di enting opinion rejected the petition. Neverthele , the underl ing view among the majorit opinion wa that thi exclu ion violated the legi lative imperative of opening Hindu temple in the tate to all Hindu .
Thi imperative i mi ing in the ca e of the Nizamuddin dargah. There i neither a clear con titutional mandate of opening Mu lim place of wor hip to all Mu lim nor a legi lation that demand it. However, the a ence of the legi lative imperative doe not automaticall mean that the exclu ion i legall ju ti ed. Ordinaril , the court are expected to enforce exi ting cu tom . Thi i where the om a high court’ deci ion in the Haji Ali dargah ca e (http ://www.legall india.com/the enchand the ar/landmark om a hcopen hajialidargahtowomen201608267924) appear to e di tinct from Nizamuddin.
In 2014, a PIL led civil ociet mem er challenged the denial of women’ entr into Haji Ali, a mo que in Mum ai. The dargah admini tration a erted no cu tom that arred the entr of women to the inner hrine—evidence efore the court
https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 4/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala ugge ted that women were not prohi ited till a late a 2012. The dargah admini tration merel a erted that their deci ion of exclu ion wa a ed on I lam. ince thi interpretation of I lam wa tenuou at e t, the court wa ound to ide in favour of the entr of women.
Intere tingl , even in the a arimala ca e, ome petitioner challenged the ver exi tence of the exclu ionar cu tom on the ground of it incon i tenc over the ear . Onl the judge DY Chandrachud (http ://www.livelaw.in/the a arimala judgmentiiiju ticechandrachudandradicalequalit /) accepted thi argument and relied on it a one of hi man ground for holding the exclu ion illegal.
Thu , the legal a e ment of the exclu ion mu t igni cantl depend on the hi torical tradition and cu tom in the ca e of the Nizamuddin dargah, particularl it continuit and con i tenc over the centurie . If the petitioner how that hi toricall , the dargah authoritie re tricted the entr of women incon i tentl , the high court i likel to not recogni e the practice a a cu tom altogether and hold the exclu ion to e without the authorit of law.
Of cour e, the mere exi tence of the cu tom would not nece aril make it legall accepta le. The Article 25 of the con titution enumerate religiou freedom a “freedom of con cience and free profe ion, practice and propagation of religion,” which i u ject to “pu lic order, health and moralit .” The provi ion al o make the freedom u ject to other fundamental right a well a the need for “ ocial welfare and reform.” ut the court have not alwa laid down clear and con i tent guideline to govern the application of the e con titutional afeguard . For example, in an important 1962 ca e (http ://indiankanoon.org/doc/510078/), the upreme Court con idered a legi lation that ought to prohi it the practice of excommunication among Dawoodi ohra ecau e it violated the civil right of the a ected individual . De pite thi , the court held the law uncon titutional, noting that it wa neither a ocialreform legi lation nor could religiou practice e re tricted on ground of protecting civil right .
https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 5/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala Neverthele , there appear to e a pattern of court holding religiou in titution and practice to the con titutional tandard of civil right . One route wa o ered in the Haji Ali ca e, where the court held that ince the dargah wa a pu lic tru t, all fundamental right were enforcea le again t it. Under Indian con titutional law, fundamental right are ordinaril not applica le again t non tate entitie . Con equentl , enforcing them whole ale again t religiou in titution would e oth unu ual and unlikel in future ca e .
Chandrachud’ opinion (http ://www.livelaw.in/the a arimalajudgmentiiiju tice chandrachudandradicalequalit /) in the a arimala ca e o er hint of a di erent trateg . Among other thing , he held that the practice that tigmati ed ome cla e of people a ed on conception of “purit and pollution” would run counter to the con titution’ prohi ition of “untoucha ilit .” In hi view, what made the pro cription at a arimala uncon titutional wa the elief that men truation made the female od rituall impure and hence ta oo in religiou pace .
Thi innovative interpretation of untoucha ilit igni cantl hift the que tion from the fact of cu tomar exclu ion to the rea on for exclu ion. It provide a crucial link to the con titutional mandate of ocial reform and articulate a per ua ive legal principle that demand intervention in tho e religiou practice that are harmful ecau e the deepen u ordination and domination.
In the Nizamuddin dargah ca e, the court mu t not onl a k if the exclu ionar cu tom exi t , ut al o if the cu tom i a ed on conception of female inferiorit and impurit that would run counter to the con titutional prohi ition of untoucha ilit . It mu t a e the nature and a i of the cu tom, in the e e of tho e who enforce it and tho e who are u jected to it.
The ke to thi inquir i to under tand the ocial meaning of the exclu ion. peci call , it i to a k what the exclu ion mean to the communit of eliever , and whether the exclu ion i under tood to e either a ed on or een to deepen u ordination. Thi cannot e done eriou l without con idering whether women among the communit of eliever con ider the exclu ion tigmati ing and
https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 6/9 6/4/2019 The Nizamuddin dargah PIL cannot be conflated with Sabarimala o jectiona le. From the per pective of rejecting tigma, the identit of the petitioner ma not e determinative, ut the inclu ion of the voice of the excluded mu t remain pivotal.
While he did not la it out like I have, the judge Indu Malhotra’ di enting opinion (http ://www.livelaw.in/the a arimalajudgmentiiju ticemalhotragroup autonom andculturaldi ent/) in a arimala voiced the concern that it ma not e appropriate for the court to intervene in religiou practice on the a i of petition led non eliever . Hence, there i a good rea on for the court to e more careful in determining the ocial meaning of exclu ion where the excluded eliever have not led petition . Thi eem to e the ca e in the Nizamuddin dargah ca e, where the petitioner have not indicated an piritual or religiou a ociation with the hrine in the petition.
The court’ deci ion in the Nizamuddin dargah ca e, like the other recent ca e on religiou reform, will e intere ting ecau e it will chart the wa in which the court will navigate religiou freedom and con titutional equalit after the a arimala judgment.
COMMENT
SUBMIT
MORE FROM THE CARAVAN
GOVERNMENT POLITICS CASTE
https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/nizamuddindargah-pil-women-entry-sabarimala 7/9