Voluntary removal of ‘thaali’ by women belonging to self-respect movement cannot be objected to by people having different views on wearing it, especially when marriages performed without following the customs, rites and ceremonies enjoyed statutory approval in the State, the Madras High Court has observed.
Justice D. Hariparanthaman made the observation while supplementing a brief order, passed by him on April 13 permitting Dravidar Kazhagam to conduct a ‘thaali removing and beef-eating ceremony on its premises in Chennai on April 14 to mark the 125{+t}{+h}birth anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar, with a detailed judgment that ran to about 90 pages.
“As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, self-respect marriages are statutorily approved in view of insertion of Section 7A to the Hindu Marriage Act, a Central legislation, through a State amendment made in 1967… I am of the view that the Section is in consonance with Article 51 of the Constitution which states that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism, spirit of inquiry and reform,” he said.
Referring to Intelligence reports relied upon by the Chennai city police to prohibit the ceremony organised by Dravidar Kazhagam, the judge said that those reports speak volumes about the conduct of the organisations that have opposing points of view to that of the petitioner and the possibility of those organisations vandalising the statues of DK’s founder ‘Thanthai’ Periyar.
“It is also stated that those Hindu organisations could organise violent demonstrations in front of the house of the Chief Minister… In my considered view, the same cannot be the reason to deprive the petitioner organisation of its fundamental right… The State is not helpless. The State shall control those persons in order to safeguard the fundamental rights,” the judge said.
Further, pointing out that the police had rightly permitted the Hindu organisations to hold a demonstration in a public place on April 9 opposing the ceremony planned by the petitioner organisation, the judge said that in all fairness, the police should have allowed the petitioner also to go ahead with the ceremony that had been planned in their private premises and not in a public place.
Mr. Justice Hariparanthaman said that an order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range, on April 12 rejecting permission for the ceremony suffered from lack of jurisdiction since such an order could not be passed by any officer other than the Commissioner of Police as per the provisions of the Madras City Police Act, 1888.
“Self-respect marriages are statutorily approved in view of insertion of Section 7A to the Hindu Marriage Act”
