I C Naik
As per news Report (TOI 4 6 2015) FIR has been filed against a developer and his sales manager for allegedly discriminating against a Maharashtrian non-vegetarian resident of Goregaon by refusing to sell a flat in their project claimed to be meant for vegetarians.
The Mumbai Police took 28 days to figure out the precise IPC Section for which “a refusal to sell a flat in a building under construction (ultimately to be managed by a housing society) can be held as a reason to imprison a builder”. In that quest the Offence has been made out to be an act of “threatening national integration” liable to imprisonment up to 3 years. Interestingly no IPC Section is mentioned in the Report.
One quite close IPC number appears to be Section “153B Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration:-
(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise,—
(a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or
(b) asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India, or
(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Eventually the Judiciary will decide the matter on arguments by public prosecutor. He may have a tough time to prove as to how it can threaten national integration if one citizen’s offer to enter in to a contract for purchase a flat being constructed by another citizen, doing the private business of constructing and selling flats.
At a time when the Human rights activists and Politicians were agitating on the issue of atrocities on minorities, this matter came up. Same time there was another story on the subject in TOI on 31 5 2015. “It would be difficult for the government to intervene in a private transaction between two people” was reportedly the view of Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, Coordinator – Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. Not elaborated further, but what Mr Nayak probably meant was this: – As a guaranteed fundamental right a builder / developer is doing business of constructing houses with a goal to make money, by applying a marketing strategy that works well in his opinion, with future members of a housing society. He arranges plethora of (nearly 50) statutory approvals. He buys land paying market prices and sets up infrastructure to build attractive houses with obviously a kind of targeted customer group in mind to get rid of the housing stock expeditiously. He alone assumes the risks of losing money also. In what way the Public i.e. BMC / Government Authorities/ Politicians and HR Activists, claim to have granted some sort of consideration to the builder, so that he agrees with them to bind himself “not to turn away any buyer offering to buy a flat in his project” despite the fact that the offer is a misfit to his marketing strategy and prone to heavy inroads in to his business. He can loose money.
This expression by Mr. Nayak seems to be related also to “rights as citizens of India” as referred to in Sub-Section 1 clause (b) and he may have in mind a sheer absence of a citizen’s right to thrust his wishes upon a businessman to accept his offer of doing business with him. Fundamental rights bind the Governments against citizens and they do not exist in relation to “ a private transaction between two people” as pointed out by Mr Nayak.
Cases of housing societies discriminating public on various grounds are also not far from few. Stories of discrimination have not been limited to common men / women only. Reportedly a member belonging to minority having a high profile woman, actor and well known social activist also reportedly faced a similar treatment. Non-vegetarian as a class may not earn a lot of sympathy but minority member and woman/actress/social activists have a strong backing of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) constituted under section 3 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.. We often come across agitation and protests to such cases also. In one of the meetings of NCM (September 1 2014) it has been recorded that “the MCM also condemns the communally charged statements attributed to prominent people in public life which are creating this atmosphere of mistrust and heightened tension.” The NCM was set up to safeguard the constitutional and legal rights of minorities in the country.” http://india.gov.in/official-website-national-commission-minorities-0
The Government of India has pronounced National Policy on Cooperatives 2002 (also acknowledged by the Apex Court in latest judgment (19 3 2015) of upholding ouster of Amul’s chairman by democratic means in recognition of constitutional rights conferred vide the 97th Constitution Amendment on cooperative societies) Under that Policy 14 Policy statements are made at Para 7 thereof. One quite pertinent policy statement is “There shall, however, be no interference in the management and working of the cooperatives”. Can Government direct housing society to rent out a flat to any person, who asks for it? Can there be housing society only of tenants?
What is the purpose of writing this? The Government of India should not become a passive observer to the outrage of discrimination etc letting the politicians and activists keep making futile noise, which create an atmosphere of mistrust in the minds of public and housing society managements. It must be firmly resolved with a strong clarification on citizen’s rights. NCM must be far more vocal on such matters and not let the illusion float around. Let the people voluntarily decide to live peacefully with each other as members of any religious, racial, linguistic, vegetarian non-vegetarian, caste or community. It is democracy finally let’s not forget.
