Following a directive from the High Court, the Bombay Parsi
Punchayet trusteeship elections have been rescheduled to May 23
Parinaz Gandhi
Both sides claimed to be the winners. As per the consent terms signed by the warring Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees on March 12, 2021 the elections will now be held on May 23. BPP trustees Noshir Dadrawala and Kersi Randeria stated in the Parsi Times of March 13, "Court Upholds Appeal,” looking forward to an early functioning of a full seven-member board. Content with the two-month reprieve, the majority trustees, chairman Armaity Tirandaz, Viraf Mehta and Xerxes Dastur, declared in their press release, "The Bombay High Court rejects prayer to hold elections on March 14.” Once the trustees officially seek an extension from the High Court to conduct the polls on May 23, a new election schedule will be announced requiring candidates to file their nominations afresh.
When the matter came up for hearing before the appellate bench of Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla and Vinay Joshi on March 12 afternoon, with not even two days left for the elections scheduled on March 14 to fill the two vacancies, Kathawalla recommended that both sides not leave the courtroom until they had finalized the new date for elections. The trustees were asked to give an undertaking that no postponements will be sought after May 23 on the grounds of Covid, etc with the exception of the government imposing a lockdown.
From l: Noshir Dadrawala, Kersi Randeria
From l: Armaity Tirandaz, Xerxes Dastur, Viraf Mehta
In a press release issued by the trio — Tirandaz, Mehta and Dastur — on March 12 they stated, "Despite the false messages floating that postponing elections is to hold on to an imaginary majority on the board of trustees, we have kept our commitment to the community to postpone the elections by two months…as a result of the rising Covid-19 cases so as to enable our elderly members of the community to get vaccinated. We urge all senior members of the community to take advantage of the vaccine drive and get duly vaccinated.”
A rejoinder from the duo — Randeria and Dadrawala — the following day however asserted that the decision to call off the elections had "absolutely nothing to do with the alleged and imagined danger of Covid-19.” The new date for election has "now been frozen by the Honorable Court and cannot be changed (regardless of the number of Covid cases) unless there is a government imposed lockdown. Currently the number of Covid cases is relatively negligible (less than 0.005% of the city’s population) and the two of us genuinely felt and believed that the elections could easily have been conducted on March 14 especially with all standard operating procedures in place… Kathawalla was very clear that Covid-19 and the pandemic should not have been made an excuse for not holding the elections.”
According to the online Parsi Junction (PJ) of March 14, the dissenting duo asked candidate Berjis Desai to support the petition filed by fellow candidates Anahita Desai and Kaikhushroo Irani but he preferred to remain neutral. Following the announcement of the new election date, Berjis conveyed to his supporters and detractors that he would not be contesting the elections which according to PJ is "no loss to Berjis but to the community at large for all of us will lose an honest trustee capable of turning the BPP around.”
When announcing the postponement decision on March 9, purportedly due to a rise in the number of Covid cases in the city, the majority trustees stated, "Putting members of our community, young and old at risk at this precarious time could potentially have catastrophic effects.” Justice A. K. Menon, before whom the case came up concurred, "Save and except for assurance that all measures to ensure safe distancing will be followed, in practical terms, as we have noticed, even in public places where these controls are sought to be imposed, safe distancing is still very difficult and, in these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the trust to postpone the elections, which prima facie appears to be for the benefit of members of the community.”
From l: Anahita Desai, Kaikhushroo Irani
The two dissenting trustees argued, "The election process once started cannot be stalled abruptly and on a whim… No purpose will be served in postponement except the mala fide purpose of perpetuating the three trustees’ majority hold.” They reasoned that at national and state levels, elections are being conducted and rallies being permitted, buses and trains in Bombay are running to packed capacity.
Some of the candidates were irked that the resolution for postponement was passed at the trustees meeting on March 9, shortly after the briefing for the candidates. As Anahita commented, "Anyone with an iota of decency would have informed the participants at the election meeting about their decision to approach the court to postpone the elections… In a sly and cowardly manner the three trustees passed a resolution to postpone the elections just half an hour after the meeting ended. What a mockery they are making of our apex institution — the BPP.”
"Do they take the community to be made up of fools?” enquired Arzan Ghadialy, community activist from Godrej Baug. "It all seems evident that Armaity, Viraf, Xerxes are being controlled by a defunct remote.” Viraf’s father and former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta has in the course of last week been variously referred to as "puppeteer,” "crooked godfather,” "Parsi grinch (who) stole the elections (an anti-Christmas character likened to Charles Dickens’s miser Ebenezer Scrooge).”
The triad had evasively declared that they would appeal to the "High Court to fix a fresh date to hold the elections once the Covid-19 situation has improved.” To
Dadrawala and Randeria, the purported resolution passed by the majority was "ab initio null and void and illegal. The scheme of elections does not empower the trustees to postpone the elections once initiated. Clause 16 cited by Viraf during the board meeting neither refers to nor empowers trustees to postpone, cancel elections already underway.” (Clause 16 states that in the event an election is not fixed "during the three months from the date when such vacancy shall have occurred... it shall be competent to the trustees to apply to a judge of the High Court in chambers after four clear days’ notice in writing of such application to the Charity Commissioner for sanctioning such extension of time” — editors)
Dogged determination
"Despite all the differences of ideology between me and Dinshaw Mehta, for once I totally agree with him on the postponement of these elections,” candidate Dr Zuleika Homavazir had stated on WhatsApp after her case in the High Court had been dismissed by Menon and before she won a judgment in her favor from the bench of Kathawalla and Joshi. Her trusteeship candidature being disqualified by the BPP trustees since she was proposed by Rustom N. Jeejeebhoy who is allegedly not a Parsi Zoroastrian, she went to court. Hoping to get a chance to file her nomination afresh she had suggested elections for all seven trusteeship seats be held in 2022 when the terms of three more trustees will expire.
Menon did not grant her any relief taking into account her "obvious reluctance…to obtain confirmation that Jeejeebhoy continues to profess the Zoroastrian faith…”
The appellate bench though ruled that unless her proposer’s name is struck off the BPP general register as a member of the electorate, in accordance with the rules, he could be entitled to vote and propose names. The judges faulted the trustees for not following Section 11 of the Election Scheme which specifies that the trustees can only strike off a name "after issuing to such person a notice in that behalf and considering the cause, if any, that such person may have within 30 days of the receipt of such notice.” The onus of ascertaining whether a person on the electoral register continues to be a Parsi Zoroastrian lies with the trustees and not a candidate, opined the judges who ruled, "It therefore appears that the trustees themselves were completely confused and not aware of what they were doing.”
Determined to win the May 23 elections and "make an extremely impacting contribution,” Homavazir addressed a WhatsApp message to the community: "We all want real change in the working of the BPP. We are dissatisfied with the pace of work done and have frustration with continued tolerance of injustice, discrimination and absolute apathy at high levels. Our trust funds are wasted on frivolous and unnecessary litigations… It’s not about talking big, it’s about first putting the house in order with systems and processes and delivering results to our beneficiaries.”
Slayed by critics
Though initially spared from any attacks, in the weeks leading up to the March deadline, Anahita’s community involvement and campaigning through the Press and meetings organized in colonies were criticized by her detractors on social media.
Another WhatsApp spat was provoked by candidate Irani who remarked: "During the pandemic when everyone was suffering we did not hear from (Tehmtan) Dumasia at all… He is a nuisance and a totally unreliable opportunistic person… The standard of the Punchayet is going down with the types of people standing for election…” According to Dumasia’s rejoinder, he had an accident at home due to which he suffered a slipped disc and was bedridden for three months and was operated on twice after which "I was advised bed rest. Still…the amount of Parsis I have helped getting admitted to the Parsee General Hospital on multiple occasions risking my own life to help save many. We’ve supplied food to people who were quarantined and didn’t have access to resources… By producing/forwarding such messages you are already violating the code of conduct you have signed.”
With the elections further deferred by two months, candidates should be ready to face more vile attacks.
A rush to judgment
For two days there was palpable excitement in the corridors and courtrooms of the Bombay High Court (BHC). Everyone anxiously awaited the outcome of a petition filed before a single member judge on March 11, 2021 and a division bench on March 12 regarding holding of, or postponing the March 14 Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections.
Arguing before BHC Justice A. K. Menon for the two petitioning trustees Noshir Dadrawala and Kersi Randeria, counsel Karl Tamboly stressed that the election had been announced on January 2 and that "all precautions had been taken” regarding Covid. Strict social distancing would be observed in the holding areas and the polling booths, temperature would be checked, sanitizers would be available, doors and windows would be open and only 10 voters would be permitted in the venue at a time, Tamboly noted.
Under the standard operating procedures (SOP) there was no prohibition to holding the elections, the lawyer stated. The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the police had been informed. Permissions were not required as long as not more than 50 persons were present at a venue. Mandaps had already been erected. Over the past year or so procedures to safeguard the populace have been laid down. "We know what to do... Covid is not going anywhere… Covid was there in January when the notice was issued. This is nothing new... It cannot be the reason…” Noting the trustees were divided three to two, the majority had a vested "interest to postpone the elections,” Tamboly alleged.
From l: Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla, Vinay Joshi and A. K. Menon
Two trusteeship seats have been vacant for several months. Former BPP chairman Yazdi Desai had suffered a stroke on April 20, 2020 and has been incapacitated since then. He resigned on December 23. Trustee Zarir Bhathena expired on June 24, last year.
According to the BPP election scheme, a board must comprise seven trustees. An election has to be called between 28 days and three months from the date of a vacancy arising. If the time has to be shortened or extended, the Charity Commissioner has to give sanction to move the BHC for permission to modify the specified time frame. Due to the pandemic the elections could not be held earlier. Accordingly in September 2020 the trustees moved the BHC for an extension. Justice B. Colabawalla directed the trust to hold the elections by March. The trustees decided to hold the election on March 14 and accordingly placed a public notice dated January 2, in the Parsi Press. On March 9 after holding a familiarization drill with the candidates where according to Tamboly, around 30 people were present "in the 200 square foot BPP boardroom,” the trustees held their weekly meeting. By a majority of three to two they voted to postpone the election, purportedly on account of the heightened Covid threat. That too without first seeking the Court’s permission to do so. The BPP intended to move the Court after March 14 but before 31, their lawyer, Firoz Bharucha stated.
Five venues were selected, one of which, Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana (DPCG) backed out citing a BMC circular emphasizing the SOP. The trustees then unanimously decided to approach the management of the Sohrab Palamkote Hall in Dadar, who agreed.
Menon noted it was difficult to control the number of people, observing that his courtroom probably contained more than 50. He however felt if the BMC "has no problem,” the elections could be held. When the BMC lawyer Patil appeared after the court lunch recess he indicated there were no specific instructions issued regarding the election and they could be held if the guidelines (SOP) were "strictly observed.”
Tamboly noted all the five trustees had signed a letter on March 8 "informing the BMC” about the elections.
Bharucha noted concerns had been raised by the DPCG as well as by the tenants’ association at Cusrow Baug as to the influx of voters and thereby the enhanced Covid risk. He said the trustees unanimously agreed to stop the campaigning by candidates in the various colonies. As many voters were elderly and still to be vaccinated, postponement would be advisable especially as the vaccines were now available to the aged.
Counsel for the three trustees Cyrus Ardeshir questioned the petitioners’ claim that the motive for postponing the election was mala fide. "What is mala fide?” he questioned. "We are veering on the side of caution. Vaccinations have started.”
After Menon turned down the application, Dadrawala and Randeria approached the bench of Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla and Vinay Joshi which heard the matter on Friday afternoon. Menon’s order had not been uploaded but due to the late hour, the justices told the lawyers to begin their arguments. After briefing the justices on the provisions of the election scheme and the motives for seeking a postponement, Tamboly noted the resolution to postpone the election was taken at 7.30 p.m. on March 9 ostensibly on the grounds of Covid but in reality to perpetuate the present three to two majority on the board.
Kathawalla questioned the BPP lawyers: "You want to be in power?” He noted that on March 2 "all the trustees were united” on holding the elections. There was "not a whisper” of dissent. Bharucha denied the allegation stating the trustees had been voicing their concern several weeks prior. In January when the notice for elections was issued the Covid "curve was going down but in February the spike started. There was a unanimous decision to stop campaigning.” He pointed out the BPP required 36 people to man each polling center.Bharucha said permissions had not been obtained from the BMC and the police. Only letters had been written informing them of the event.
"Show me what permissions are required,” retorted Kathawalla. As regards the instructions to stop campaigning, he observed, "You are supposed to canvas. The elections were not stopped.” How could the trustees direct candidates and others not to use their phones for campaigning? He also asked the BPP counsel, "How can you extend the date without the Court’s permission...Go strictly by the scheme.”
By consent, both parties then agreed to postpone the elections. The BPP counsel wanted a day to consult with the trustees but Kathawalla turned down the request and after some discussion in Court a date of Sunday, May 23 was agreed as well as an undertaking made that neither party would seek an extension on any ground except a government mandated lockdown. Kathawalla then told them to sit in the Court rather than elsewhere and work out the schedule of dates to be followed. He probably was mindful of the pushing and shoving that occurred between the Mehtas and Randeria in the magistrate’s court complex some years ago. Tamboly assured the judges he and advocate Hormuz Mehta would ensure nothing got out of hand. But out of abundant caution Kathawalla advised them to make the two main opposing protagonists sit facing opposite directions! "You boys are too innocent,” he told the lawyers.