LAWS(KER)-2013-7-137

AMINAKUTTY Vs. HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA

Decided On July 25, 2013
Aminakutty Appellant
V/S
HAJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the stipulation in Clause 3 of Ext. P1 Guidelines issued by the second respondent, insisting that a woman pilgrim proceeding for 'Haj' has to be accompanied by a 'Mehram' (a male member of the family within the prohibited degree of relationship) is correct or sustainable, is the point sought to be considered in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, who is a lady aged 64 years, sought to perform 'Haj' and filed Ext. P2 application in tune with Ext. P1 Notification, which stipulates the Guidelines issued by the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, she does not have a male member in the family, as her son is working in Saudi Arabia and hence the name of 'Mehram' was shown in the application as 'Sainaba', a close friend/neighbour aged 60 years. But the petitioner was given to understand that, by virtue of Ext. P1 Guidelines, the application of the petitioner will not be considered favourably, for want of a male 'Mehram', which made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

(2.) The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that, the second respondent had issued Ext. P1 in the local language, which is nothing but a translation of the Guidelines issued by the first respondent (in English), a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R2(a). It is for the first respondent, who is the competent body, to make policy decisions for 'Haj' every year. The second respondent, who is an authority constituted under the Haj Committee Act, 2002, aids in making arrangements for the pilgrimage of Muslims for 'Haj'. It is stated that, as per Clause 4(v) of Ext. R2(a) Guidelines issued by the first respondent, ladies not accompanied by "Sharai Mehram" are not eligible for applying for 'Haj'-2013. It is also stated that, Ext. P2 application for 'Haj' stated as preferred by the petitioner, has not reached the office of the second respondent till date, even though the last date for submission of the application was extended upto 30.3.2013.