By Nitish Kashyap & Anuj Agrawal .Exactly four months after reserving it’s judgement in the Haji Ali matter, on 9 June the Bombay High Court’s Justices VM Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere ruled [pdf] that the matter will be listed for pronouncement of judgement on 28 June..Revolving around the ban on women from entering the inner sanctorum of the Haji Ali dargah in Mumbai, the PIL seeking revocation of the ban has been heard by the High Court since November of 2014. The matter had garnered significant media attention, both in the country and outside..Unsurprisingly, on the morning of June 28 and one week before the end of the holy month of Ramzan, a number of news outlets ran stories on the impending judgment..However, the judgment was never pronounced; the matter did not even find mention on the day’s cause list..But first, a few facts..How did this matter reach the Bombay High Court?.The public interest litigation in question was filed by the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan against restrictions imposed in 2012 on the entry of women inside the inner sanctorum (mazar) of the dargah..On November 7, 2014 the PIL was mentioned by advocate Raju Moray before the then Chief Justice, Mohit Shah. Subsequently, the matter was assigned to a division bench headed by SC Dharmadhikari J..What happened in the Bombay High Court?.On January 28 of 2015, a division Bench of SC Dharmadhikari and SP Deshmukh JJ framed eight questions (read order) that required a detailed examination. This included questions over the maintainability of the PIL, as well as whether the right to worship “at a inner sanctorum” was protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution..The next date of hearing would be February 11, 2015..However, it appears that on February 11, the then Chief Justice directed the matter be placed before a bench headed by VM Kanade J. As reflected in an order dated February 23, 2015 (read order) passed by VM Kanade and AR Joshi JJ, the matter was then adjourned to March 15. Subsequent orders (April 1, July 10), reveal that a bench headed by VM Kanade J started hearing the matter in detail..Now during the course of these hearings, a suggestion was made by the Bench for an amicable solution; the Trust was asked to consider (read order) allowing women to enter the mazaar. In October of 2015, the court was informed that no amicable solution would be possible. The trust had unanimously held that the “entry of women in the close vicinity of a male saint was a grievous sin”..The High Court would have to hear the matter on merits..When the State was asked to give its opinion, the then Advocate General Shreehari Aney took a very categorical stand..“The role of the State is defined by its duty to make sure that law is equally applied. If we look at Article 26, the Dargah committee cannot say that according to our interpretation of our religion, preventing entry of women inside the sanctum sanctorum is tantamount to law.”.When Justice Kanade inquired whether the court should take a view in this matter, Aney replied,.“If something is there in the Constitution that is difficult to apply then which court but this, can take a view. It will be avoiding an issue if you do not take a view.”.Judgement was reserved after the state’s submissions on February 9 of 2016..But the matter did not end there..The Sabarimala controversy and Anil Rai.In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court had begun hearing a petition challenging the ban on women from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Mindful of this fact, on June 9 this year, the High Court sought more information on the status of this case..But in that very order, the bench of VM Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere JJ also directed the matter to be listed on June 28 for pronouncement of judgement..Here, it may be prudent to take note of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar. These guidelines, which are applicable to all High Courts, also deal with situations where there is a delay in delivering the judgment after being reserved..“Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months, from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.”.However, Anil Rai does not indicate what would happen if these guidelines are not followed. All the apex court observes is that the guidelines be “strictly followed”; it does not spell out the consequences of non-compliance..Nor is it clear if the rationale adopted in Anil Rai is applicable to the apex court itself..Earlier this year, the apex court dismissed an appeal against a judgement of the Delhi High Court which held that the Supreme Court was not required to maintain data on reserved judgments. The matter can be traced to an August 2011 decision of the Central Information Commission’s asking the apex court to provide these details. This decision, which was subsequently upheld by a single bench of the Delhi High Court, was based on Anil Rai..Looking ahead, it would appear that until an application is moved by the petitioner, it is anybody’s guess when the final judgment would be pronounced..To this advocate Raju Moray told Bar & Bench,.“Over the coming weekend if no date is fixed for pronouncement, we will move [the] court for fixing the date. We will take necessary steps.”.Read the June 9 order below.
By Nitish Kashyap & Anuj Agrawal .Exactly four months after reserving it’s judgement in the Haji Ali matter, on 9 June the Bombay High Court’s Justices VM Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere ruled [pdf] that the matter will be listed for pronouncement of judgement on 28 June..Revolving around the ban on women from entering the inner sanctorum of the Haji Ali dargah in Mumbai, the PIL seeking revocation of the ban has been heard by the High Court since November of 2014. The matter had garnered significant media attention, both in the country and outside..Unsurprisingly, on the morning of June 28 and one week before the end of the holy month of Ramzan, a number of news outlets ran stories on the impending judgment..However, the judgment was never pronounced; the matter did not even find mention on the day’s cause list..But first, a few facts..How did this matter reach the Bombay High Court?.The public interest litigation in question was filed by the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan against restrictions imposed in 2012 on the entry of women inside the inner sanctorum (mazar) of the dargah..On November 7, 2014 the PIL was mentioned by advocate Raju Moray before the then Chief Justice, Mohit Shah. Subsequently, the matter was assigned to a division bench headed by SC Dharmadhikari J..What happened in the Bombay High Court?.On January 28 of 2015, a division Bench of SC Dharmadhikari and SP Deshmukh JJ framed eight questions (read order) that required a detailed examination. This included questions over the maintainability of the PIL, as well as whether the right to worship “at a inner sanctorum” was protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution..The next date of hearing would be February 11, 2015..However, it appears that on February 11, the then Chief Justice directed the matter be placed before a bench headed by VM Kanade J. As reflected in an order dated February 23, 2015 (read order) passed by VM Kanade and AR Joshi JJ, the matter was then adjourned to March 15. Subsequent orders (April 1, July 10), reveal that a bench headed by VM Kanade J started hearing the matter in detail..Now during the course of these hearings, a suggestion was made by the Bench for an amicable solution; the Trust was asked to consider (read order) allowing women to enter the mazaar. In October of 2015, the court was informed that no amicable solution would be possible. The trust had unanimously held that the “entry of women in the close vicinity of a male saint was a grievous sin”..The High Court would have to hear the matter on merits..When the State was asked to give its opinion, the then Advocate General Shreehari Aney took a very categorical stand..“The role of the State is defined by its duty to make sure that law is equally applied. If we look at Article 26, the Dargah committee cannot say that according to our interpretation of our religion, preventing entry of women inside the sanctum sanctorum is tantamount to law.”.When Justice Kanade inquired whether the court should take a view in this matter, Aney replied,.“If something is there in the Constitution that is difficult to apply then which court but this, can take a view. It will be avoiding an issue if you do not take a view.”.Judgement was reserved after the state’s submissions on February 9 of 2016..But the matter did not end there..The Sabarimala controversy and Anil Rai.In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court had begun hearing a petition challenging the ban on women from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. Mindful of this fact, on June 9 this year, the High Court sought more information on the status of this case..But in that very order, the bench of VM Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere JJ also directed the matter to be listed on June 28 for pronouncement of judgement..Here, it may be prudent to take note of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar. These guidelines, which are applicable to all High Courts, also deal with situations where there is a delay in delivering the judgment after being reserved..“Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months, from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.”.However, Anil Rai does not indicate what would happen if these guidelines are not followed. All the apex court observes is that the guidelines be “strictly followed”; it does not spell out the consequences of non-compliance..Nor is it clear if the rationale adopted in Anil Rai is applicable to the apex court itself..Earlier this year, the apex court dismissed an appeal against a judgement of the Delhi High Court which held that the Supreme Court was not required to maintain data on reserved judgments. The matter can be traced to an August 2011 decision of the Central Information Commission’s asking the apex court to provide these details. This decision, which was subsequently upheld by a single bench of the Delhi High Court, was based on Anil Rai..Looking ahead, it would appear that until an application is moved by the petitioner, it is anybody’s guess when the final judgment would be pronounced..To this advocate Raju Moray told Bar & Bench,.“Over the coming weekend if no date is fixed for pronouncement, we will move [the] court for fixing the date. We will take necessary steps.”.Read the June 9 order below.
