Delhi High Court appoints amicus curiae to examine implementation of Article 15(2)

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has appointed senior advocate V Giri as amicus curiae to examine the implementation of Article 15(2).

Advocate V Giri, as amicus curiae, will also examine the broader issue of discriminatory practices prevalent in society.

The Delhi High Court gave this order while hearing the petition of a certain woman from Meghalaya.

In her petition, a Khasi woman from Meghalaya challenged Delhi Golf Club’s decision to deny her entry to the club for wearing traditional dress.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that discrimination on the basis of place of birth would impinge on Article 15(2) of the Constitution.

On December 12, the court granted time to the club to place on record the latest amended bye-laws.

Referring to the by-laws submitted by the club, the woman’s counsel, senior advocate Vrinda Grover, submitted that they now gave rise to discrimination.

Thereafter, the Bench said that it would like to examine the wider issue of the applicability of Article 15(2) and the prevailing discriminatory practices in the society, and for this purpose appointed Senior Advocate V Gray as Amicus in the matter. was appointed.

The bench has further heard the matter on January 20 next year.

This petition has been filed by a woman of Khasi origin belonging to a Scheduled Tribe state of Meghalaya, who was denied the right to be a guest for lunch at the dining area of ​​Delhi Golf Club Limited. Because of his facial appearance and his cultural dress.

“Her facial appearance and cultural attire, ‘which was an expression of her being a Nepali maid in the wisdom of the golf club,’ and he himself invited her as a lunch guest,” the petition said. Deprived of the right to do so.”

The petition sought directions to ensure that discrimination on the basis of caste, sex, place of birth, cultural dress and expression, occupation, etc., which is an insult and violation of the right to human dignity, is not allowed to continue. Not to be given. Dress rules, regulations, regulations, etc. of public resorts and places of amusement.

Further, it has sought directions to ensure that the funds kept outside the state or the places benefiting from financial incentives from the state are required to uphold the constitutional values ​​of equality, fraternity and social justice.