By I C Naik
Recalling the 1992-93 riots the TIMES NEWS NETWORK has come out with a lead story followed by two more reports on the same page on “ghettoization” of minorities in Mumbai Metero.
Reportedly (TOI 28 May 2015) Activists and political and community leaders have demanded stern action against those who discriminate on religious ground; media professional Misbah Quadri being forced out of a rented flat because she is Muslim.
As the report goes outraged by the news, a prominent activist reportedly rushed to Wadala Police Station with a complaint on Wednesday. Two of his reported statements are: (i) “I asked the police to take suo-motu action and investigate the matter and (ii) “The need is to encourage educated Muslim professionals to join the mainstream and living in a cosmopolitan atmosphere helps forge the process.” Politicians will not be found lacking in expressing opinions on such occasions “Denying houses to an Indian on religious ground is unconstitutional. An FIR should be filed and both the broker and the officials of the housing society who discriminated against Misbah should be booked,“ reportedly said a popular former MP from North Mumbai.
Housing society and Religious discrimination was a topic of two stories on www.indiancooperative.com Posted on 11 February 2014 Registering a co-op housing society for the Nairs and the other Posted in Cooperative Coffee Shop on February 02, 2015. The views expressed therein apply fully to the present activist and politician outrage which get carried by a “media trial” to recall a term our Honurable President coined recently.
The 25 year young journo lands up at an apartment shared by two girls already, presumably after proper approval of owner and permission of the Society and Police Verification. All these are suo-motu waived by the young journo by accepting an invitation reportedly posted on social media. All these are condoned for the victim belongs to minority.
It is pertinent to reiterate here what the Hon. Supreme Court siccintly observed in its Order in the case of Zoroastrian Co-Operative Housing Society Limited And Another V. District Registrar Co-Operative Societies (Urban) & Ors [2005]Rd-Sc 253 (15 April 2005) Bench JJ B .N. Agrawal & P.K. Balasubramanyan. From what follows it can be inferred that the Apex Court had upheld the sanctity of fundamental right of choosing a kind of people of their choice to form and continue to live in a cooperative housing society without any State interference. At para 10 of the judgment the Supreme Court observes:” In the suggestions for the promotion of a housing society the first essential is said to be that there should be a bond of common habits and common usage among the members which should strengthen their neighbourly feelings, their loyal adherence to the will of the society expressed by the committee’s orders and their unselfish and harmonious working together. In India, this bond was most frequently found in a community or caste or groups like cultivators of a village.”
Para 17 of the judgment is really a candid admission of the status. “It appears to us that unless appropriate amendments are brought to the various Cooperative Societies Acts incorporating a policy that no society shall be formed or if formed, membership in no society shall be confined to persons of a particular persuasion, religion, belief or region, it could not be said that a society would be disentitled to refuse membership to a person who is not duly qualified to be one in terms of its bye-laws.”
Undoubtedly, no body takes trouble to look at Article 15 of the Constitution of India. It says “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them” or deny access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
Where does one read Housing society in this list?
And mind well this is a mandate to the “State” i.e. the Public Authority and not to the Private Persons which includes unaided cooperatives.