SHAMEENA RASHEED Vs. HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of this writ petition concerns the claim raised by the petitioners for inclusion in the reserved category, to perform Haj for the year 2012. There is a challenge against the stipulation, viz. clause 9(B)(i) of Ext.P1 and it is contended that it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioners had to approach this Court in the following circumstances. They have submitted applications Exts.P4(a) to P4(c) showing the name of the husband of the first petitioner Abdul Rasheed as Mehram, as it is obligatory for a woman to be accompanied by a male to perform Haj. He is related to the petitioners as being the husband of the first petitioner, son in law of the second petitioner and brother in law of the third petitioner. The petitioners have been applying for performing Haj for the last three years, viz. 2009, 2010 and 2011 showing his name as their Mehram. Actually he had performed Haj in 2004.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a Mehram should be a very close relation coming within clause 9(A)(ii) of Ext.P1. The petitioners are not having any other person to join as Mehram. Therefore, they are totally deprived from getting the benefit of inclusion in the reserved category. Ext.P3 was thus filed pointing out these aspects.