top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators,...

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, including women and students, who took out marches in solidarity with agitations in the national capital over the weekend. Advocate Manish Tomar, representing the petitioner, urged the court to issue an interim order restraining the police from making further detentions during peaceful demonstrations. A division bench, however, declined the plea for a general stay on police action.
Court’s Assurance "We cannot pass a blanket order saying no person shall be detained. You point out if there is any such instance, we will take care. We will not permit anything wrong," the court observed. Additional Government Pleader Manish Upadhye sought time to seek instructions from the concerned authorities on the claims made in the petition. Accepting the request, the high court adjourned the matter and posted the plea for further hearing on October 19. Devre's plea sought protection of the fundamental rights of citizens, peaceful demonstrators, lawyers and others in connection with the protests in the national capital against the CEC. Terming it as an issue involving the fundamental right of people, the PIL said it was filed to protect a simple freedom of every Mumbai resident citizens – to walk freely on the city roads, to stand peacefully with others, or to stay in one’s home “without being lifted and carried away” by the police without an individual reason. It mentioned how students were allegedly picked up from their homes in connection with protest cases dating back to July 2026, which the petition said had already been quashed by the Supreme Court. Making it clear that the challenge was not against the police’s legal authority to regulate public assemblies or the political positions taken by protesters, the petitioner claimed it was to question the practice of detaining people without individualised, lawful and recorded reasons, or using previously quashed cases and past detentions against them. Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, the plea argued that coercive action based merely on a person's association, appearance on a list, previous detention or presence in a public place would amount to arbitrary state action. It further contended that a quashed FIR could not be used as a continuing basis for hostile discriminatory treatment as a ‘permanent mark’ against a citizen since "a quashed FIR is no FIR at all”. The PIL seeks the court's declaration as 'unconstitutional' the sweeping detention of peaceful demonstrators, pedestrians and others without lawful individual justification. It seeks an independent inquiry into the alleged police excesses, preservation of CCTV footage, police records, a verified list of the detenus and framing of standard operating procedures to govern policing action during mass-protests. Long detentions The petitioner contended that the detentions went beyond the demonstrators to include bystanders and passers-by, among them women, a mother with a child and a senior citizen. Among those detained included Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Arun Gandhi, his daughter Kasturi, actor Imran Khan, activists Feroze Mithiborwala, S. L. Guddi, scores of youth and students, though they were released after several hours of detention by various police stations.

Sacred Attire

Jan 29, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page