A case of misuse of the Disturbed Areas Act and blatant Islamophobia and outright boycott of the Muslim community has come to light in Gujarat. Not that there is any dearth of such incidents in many parts of the country, but this time, the same has come to light in the Gujarat high Court, where the court imposed cost on the litigants for opposing the sale of property from a Hindu man to a Muslim man, after the sale was executed. The bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav questioned the motive of the applicants while imposing costs. The neighbours in the locality opposed the renovations being made to the property, even though earlier two signatories had consented to the sale during a panchnama.
The Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 requires previous permission before a sale can be executed in a disturbed area. The permission was sought as per the law however, since the police report opined that such a transfer would create a law and order problem as a sale through a Muslim by Hindu would result in polarization, it was opined that the application should not be granted.
An application was thus filed by Onali Ezazuddin Dholkawala challenging the order of Deputy Collector, Vadodara dated January 30, 2017, which was confirmed by Secretary, Revenue Department in June 2018. By this order, the petitioner’s permission for purchase of property in predominantly Hindu areas was rejected on the ground that such sale was likely to affect the balance in the majority Hindu / Minority Muslims and could develop into a law and order problem.
The court noted that the “consideration on whether it would create a law and order problem and disturb the equilibrium was misconceived” and only wished to look at whether the sale was for a fair consideration and with free consent.
In a judgment dated March 9, 2020 the high court had opined that this was “foreign to the concept of the decision making process as what was only important was whether it was not a distress sale and the property was sold for a fair value with free consent.”
Even after this judgement, the Sub Registrar was not completing the registration procedure for the sale deed and hence another application was moved, after which the registration was done. However, the signatory to the panchnamas who had otherwise supported the sale approached the Division Bench challenging the 2020 judgment.
The Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dharitri Pancholi submitted before the court that the state undertaken the exercise of recording statements of the panchas who have said that they were constrained to sign the panchnamas as neighbors and subsequently some other statements of the neighborhood were obtained which indicated that the neighbors had expressed reservations against the transaction of the sale of the property in question.
The applicants seeking recall of the judgement argued that the judgement has several mistakes. It is the case of the applicants that the shop was of Hindu which was sold to a Muslim in a Hindu community area whereas, in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the judgment the Court has mentioned that it was a sale to a Hindu. However, the court noted that this particular one was a singular error and a minor one. The court also refused to accept the argument that the judgement was obtained by fraud.
The applicants, who signed the panchanamas, sought recall on the ground that their signatures to the panchnamas were taken without them actually understanding the repercussions. In a set of fresh statements recorded by the state, the applicants said that they do not dispute the signatures but they were compelled to sign such statements and were not residing in that neighbourhood. However, the petitioner produced evidence to show that the signatories were indeed residing in that neighbourhood.
The court said that the motive of the applicants was questionable. The court also observed that the retaking of the statement, as earlier directed by a bench, brought forth other neighbours who came forward suggesting that the sale should not have happened as it was creating a situation where the equilibrium was being disturbed.
The court dismissed the applications filed by the signatories and the other neighbours while observing thus,
“this when seen in context of the facts itself is a disturbing factor that a successful purchaser of property in a disturbed area is being hounded and thwarting his attempt to enjoy the fruits of the property which he successfully purchased.” (para 21)
The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicants.
The Gujarat High Court judgement may be read here:
Boycott during COVID
There are many such incidents of Muslims facing socio-economic boycott in various parts of the country. The most brazen of these were witnessed in 2020 when during the COVID-19 pandemic, at its peak, Muslims were literally ostracized in the name of the Tablighi Jamaat members, who were detained one by one in various parts of the country and who were let off by courts finding no criminality in their actions, as per the law. In 2020-21, one by one, these cases against Jamaat members came up before courts across the country and one by one they were either discharged from the offences or they were granted bail. Sabrang India’s analysis of these multiple orders, reveals that the Courts not just bailed out Tablighi members, but seriously questioned the charges invoked against them, quashing the cases filed against them. The narrative around the Tablighi Jamaat turned turtle with courts discounting such charges viewing them as unsubstantial. The Tablighi narrative was used against Indian Muslims as the visiting foreign nationals were given refuge by the Muslim community in India, in mosques or madrassas or in some cases, their homes as well. This was then twisted into socio economic boycott of the entire Muslim community by using terms like “corona jihad” and a “conspiracy” was ascribed to the community that they were conspiring to spread COVID-19 in the country.
Socio-economic boycott still active
After this narrative died down and life was coming back to normal after COVID-19, the socio economic boycott continued in some way or another. One such series was documented by Citizens for Justice and Peace, pointing towards boycotts at temple fairs in Dakshin Kannada. Early in January, management committee of Sullia Sri Channakeshava Temple, Mangaluru had decided to have an open auction of the stalls irrespective of religion but after pressure mounting from the local Hindutva group Hindu Hitarakshana Vedike, the temple management decided that Muslim vendors will not be allowed at the fair. In November last year, during the Champa Shashti festival of Kukke Sri Subrahmanya temple as well, Non-Hindu traders were disallowed. What had begun at a Shimoga temple and was followed by more in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi has spread to shrines in Tumkur, Hassan, Chikmagalur and other districts including temples of Belur Channakeshava in Hassan, Siddhalingeshwara in Tumkur and the 800-year-old Bappanadu temple (built by Muslim merchant Bappa Beary of Kerala) which has been a symbol of communal harmony.
Despite the Constitution of India providing protection to all citizens against such a blatant discrimination on the grounds of religion etc, the boycotts are pretty much prevalent and seeing the outreach of the fringe groups, looks like they are here to stay. Under the Constitution, Article 19 ensures freedom of movement and the right to undertake economic activity. While Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.
Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh apart from Uttar Pradesh have also seen similar blatant calls for a socio-economic boycott driven by such right wing groups and some fringe groups that drive these vehemently on the ground.
Related:
HATE WATCH: DAKSHINA KANNADA AND A PATTERN OF BOYCOTT AT TEMPLE FAIRS
HATE WATCH: PARVESH VERMA CALLS FOR TOTAL BOYCOTT OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY