Archive

In the first week of May 2021 the Surat Parsi Panchayat (SPP) approached the Gujarat High Court for permission to consign Covid-19 afflicted Parsi corpses to the dakhmas instead of cremating them. They cited reports which stated there was no scientific data to show that Covid-19 can spread through dead bodies. A year earlier they had made representation to the concerned state authorities asking for permission but received no response. Parsiana prints extracts from a "statement” prepared by SPP to explain the "true facts” of the case.

While going through the judgment of July 23, passed by the bench of the High Court of Gujarat, we strongly feel the Court did not deal properly with the core scientific and legal issues covered in the petition. Perhaps the Court was oblivious to the reality at the ground level while finally disposing of the petition without resolving the issue of granting permission for dakhmenashini to Parsis who have died due to Covid.
Initially our petition was assigned to a single bench of the Gujarat High Court but was later merged with other Covid related petitions and assigned to a double bench. This stripped us of the right to reapply before a double bench should the judgment not go in our favor. In spite of putting forth all the above mentioned justifications, it appears that the double bench was not aware of or disregarded the salient points raised in our petition. As a result, the judgment given by the Court was not in our favor.
However, there appear to be several questionable statements in the judgment, the foremost being the overly large emphasis placed on the issue raised by lawyer Percy Kavina regarding the practice of burial. It is unclear why Kavina was allowed to present his views despite him not being part of counsel or appearing to possess any distinguished knowledge of   the religion as a priest or scholar. The judgment stated that Kavina submitted that since the last 100 years the means of disposal of dead bodies of the Parsis has been burial only. This is a  gross misrepresentation of facts as it is common knowledge that a considerably large chunk of  the community prefers to opt for dakhmenashini. The motive of the SPP is only to get rights for the people who wish to follow dakhmenashini if it is scientifically proven to be harmless in the current scenario; whether to do so is entirely a matter of personal choice.
Another  seemingly false statement submitted by Kavina mentioned in the judgment is that except  the belt from Ahmedabad to Bhilad, consecrated burial grounds are available to Parsis. He seems to have conveniently ignored Bombay — the city with the single largest concentration of Parsis in his statement. Also to be noted is the fact that the belt from Ahmedabad to Bombay comprises 90% of the population of Parsis in India.
The judgment also emphasizes that the Court only takes decisions on a matter if it is a living issue and as the curve has flattened the case is an academic one. However, the SPP had filed the petition in the month of May, wherein May 7, 2021 was the very peak of the second wave. Between the time of filing the petition and final hearing more than 10 Parsis have died of Covid-19 and have been cremated without being given a choice.
The judges had asked to be supplied with the data of the number of people currently serious or on ventilator support. However, sufficient time was not provided to submit such hard-to-compile data, nor were we given the permission to submit it in written form. The judges themselves stated during the proceedings that a third wave is imminent. Moreover, both the state and central governments are bracing themselves for the third wave. Dr Randeep Guleria, director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, had stated on June 19, that a third wave is likely to hit in the coming six to eight weeks. Taking into consideration the views of such experts, the Covid-19 pandemic does not seem like  a thing of the past.
While we sincerely hope that the nation does not go through another devastating wave of new infections, it is of utmost importance that we get the right to perform the last rites of our beloved ones while upholding our religious traditions in case this pandemic were  to continue with no end in sight. Thus, for us, the case is not an academic one.
The judgment does not at all mention any scientific evidence to disprove any scientific facts supplied by the SPP nor does it take into consideration the plight of those community members who are not given the right to choose their preferred method of last rites. The trustees of the SPP do feel that the larger interest of our community has not been taken care of in this judgment.
In these circumstances, we feel that the matter needs to be carried further to the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we the trustees of the SPP have unanimously resolved to take the matter with the appropriate higher authority under legal advice.
We anticipate expenses of Rs 25 to 30 lakhs, or even more, towards legal fees, for which we appeal to the Parsi community and benevolent trusts to come forward and donate generously to help us achieve our rights under the Constitution.
Please draw cheques in favor of "The Surat Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties Trust” and send them to R. M. Kooka Parsi Panchayat Buildings, Dr Jamshedji Laskari Road, Shahpore, Surat 395003, email: office@suratparsipanchayat.com
Donors are assured that in the event we are unable to collect sizeable donations or if there is any unused amount of the donation it will be returned to the respective donors.

Designated senior advocate Percy Kavina responds to SPP’s contentions:
The first paragraph is obviously based upon a lack of knowledge about Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The proceedings are governed by statutory rules framed by the High Court on the Administrative side. As provided for in the said rules, all PILs must be placed before a division bench, preferably where the Chief Justice is presiding. So, no injustice was done to the SPP on that score.
A PIL is a very loosely structured proceeding where any person having a matter of relevance may approach the bench and make submissions; strict rules of standing do not apply, it being sufficient if oral leave was sought and granted by the bench. I was part of the virtual hearing of various PILs which took place on the day in question and in my capacity as a lawyer practicing in the Court and a Parsi by birth I was listening keenly to the submissions made on behalf of the SPP. It was sought to be projected that dakhmenashini is the only means of the disposal of the deceased amongst Parsis. This was a case of incomplete, even false facts and had to be corrected.
I pointed out that there were many large urban centers and smaller ones where despite the fact that Parsis have been living for decades, burial was the proper, accepted and indeed only mode of disposal of the dead. That was the extent of my submission. I have never asserted or implied that this was the norm; rather I had pointed out that the norm had some significant exceptions. I also pointed out that when consecrated burial grounds are not available, the dead are cremated. More importantly, I had submitted that there is a small but significant number of Parsis who prefer to be cremated and that number is increasing. The purpose was to bring before the Court other acceptable forms of disposal of the dead (burial and cremation) and not any sacrilege that the SPP’s counsel has tried to imply. I have never asserted that these so-called alternatives were the only methods.
But my intervention was actuated by a far more serious concern, which is this: I was witnessing that in the teeth of the second wave, a minuscule community was asking to be treated differently on the ground of "religious sentiments.” I utterly reject this. A hugely respected, even loved and cherished people like us Parsis do ourselves a disservice by asserting that a vital aspect of the religious freedom is taken away, and hence seek a dispensation from the measures designed to curb the epidemic. This request would have gained us nothing and smacked of religious exceptionalism of the most base kind, a vice which none of our forebears have hitherto displayed. I will not stand by when untenable claims are made in the name of my community. As a Parsi and a lawyer it was my clear duty to point out specious pleading and I have done only that. The SPP trots out the numbers theory and how a majority of persons opt for dakhmenashini. There is no doubt that this assertion may be true. But I had never asserted otherwise. 
Therefore, if measures to control the epidemic involve cremation, so be it. I understand that what is being played out here is the age-old fight of the backward-looking versus the forward-looking. No better place to join battle than the pages of good ole Parsiana.