VIRUPPIL KHADEEJA Vs. KERALA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved is with regard to the right of the petitioners to perform Haj, particularly as to the right of the 'Mahram', i.e. the second petitioner herein who has performed 'Haj' in 2006) to accompany a lady pilgrim ( i.e. the first petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the second petitioner ). The grievance is in respect of the hurdles imposed recently, by virtue of the guidelines issued as per Ext. P3; whereby it has been stipulated that no 'repeaters' will be permitted to perform Haj.

(2.) THE sequence of events as described in the writ petition shows that the first petitioner has never performed Haj and is desirous of doing the same. She was repeatedly applying for an opportunity for the past four years, jointly with her husband, who had occasion to perform Haj in the year 2006; as mentioned above. But, on all the previous occasions, the applications preferred were being turned down due to one or other reason, particularly in view of the limited number of seats available. But by virtue of the enabling provision to the effect that, there will be reservation in respect of the pilgrims whose applications came to be declined on the previous three occasions, the petitioners were hopeful of obtaining a chance to perform 'Haj' in this year. In the meanwhile, the guidelines came to be changed as per Ext.P3, whereby a specific clause has been incorporated prohibiting 'repeaters' from performing Haj, as a result of which, the first petitioner is not in a position to perform 'Haj' as there is nobody else to accompany her as 'Mahram'.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that a lady pilgrim will be permitted to perform 'Haj' only if she is accompanied by a 'Mahram', who should be a close relative of the lady pilgrim. This being the position, the second petitioner is the only 'Mahram' available in the case of the first petitioner and as such, unless entry is given to the second petitioner as well, the first petitioner will not be permitted to perform 'Haj' and hence the joint application. But in view of the adverse entry/clause in Ext.P3 to the effect that the 'repeaters' will not be permitted to perform 'Haj', the application preferred by the petitioners was likely to be summarily rejected, which hence was sought to be intercepted.