The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved its order on maintainability of a petition seeking that it recall its order in which the state had assured the court that entering any place of worship is t
The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved its order on maintainability of a petition seeking that it recall its order in which the state had assured the court that entering any place of worship is the fundamental right of women and the state government is duty-bound to protect their right.
The division bench of Chief Justice of the Bombay high court D.H. Waghela and Justice M.S. Sonak was hearing an intervention application filed by Sunita Patil seeking to recall the HC order passed on April 1.
The petitioner’s lawyer Subhash Jha has contended in the petition that during the hearing of a PIL challenging the ban on entry of women at Shani Shingnapur and other temples in Maharashtra, the state government had assured the court that it would implement ‘Maharashtra Hindu Places of Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956’.
The assurance was given in view that this Act would prevent gender bias, however, according to Mr Jha, the Act was passed post-Independence to prevent discrimination against dalits and people belonging to scheduled castes. If gender discrimination were the issue behind forming the Act, the legislation would have specifically mentioned ‘women’ in the Act, he said.
However, the bench said before hearing the petition on merits the petitioner should first satisfy the court that the intervention application was maintainable.
The court heard Mr Jha on this subject and reserved its order on it.
Acting Advocate General Rohit Deo, however, opposed the petition contending that the court disposed of the petition after the government had told the court that it is not gender-biased and assured it of implementing the Act.
He further added that the court had disposed of the petition after taking the statement of government on record and no order was passed so there is no question of recalling the order.
He also said that how the government interprets the Act can be a matter of debate, but for this the court need not recall its order.
Five other petitioners also wanted to intervene in the petition and be heard before court passed an order because all the petitions were filed on similar lines. However, the bench said it would hear one application at a time.
