Twitter
Advertisement

How Maharashtra govt upheld its badge of 'welfare state' in Shani Shingnapur and Haji Ali dargah cases

The state supported the woman petitioners Noorjehan Niaz who had challenged the ban

Latest News
article-main
Shani temple and Haji Ali dargah
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

Maharashtra has truly upheld its badge of being a ‘Welfare State’ by supporting equal rights for all genders, particularly in regard to the Haji Ali dargah and the Shani Shingnapur temple issues. In both the cases, the government came out with a strong stand in ensuring that entry of woman is not banned and Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India are not violated.

In the case of entry of woman inside the Shani Shingnapur temple the government stated that it would abide and implement the provisions of the Maharashtra Hindu Place of Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956. Thereby paving way for entry of activist Trupti Desai. In the case of women's entry inside the inner sanctorum of Haji Ali dargah, the state argued “It is the duty of state to uphold Constitution of India; Right to worship under Article 25 is concerned only with essential and integral practice of religion. In the instant case, unless the impugned ban is shown to be an aspect of essential or integral practice of Islam, it cannot be set up as being a permissible abridgment of the fundamental right under Article 14 and 15.”

Haji Ali dargah Management committee, had argued that they have fundamental right under Article 26 to manage religious affairs, opposing this the state had argued “Said right is limited to management and not regulation. In other words right to management cannot override right to practice a religion itself.”

Moreover, the state supported the woman petitioners Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Niaz, who had challenged the ban, by arguing that “it would be necessary to distinguish between such practice which is integral and other practices which are peripheral or merely matters of tradition or custom. The test to be followed should be whether the practice is such that without it the essential character of the religion would stand destroyed, or its theology would be rendered irrelevant. Mere custom or usage should not be considered as law nor be considered as essential practice of a religion.”

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement