As per Nizami, the existence of dedicated spaces in the dargah allocated only to women shows the place doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. "There is a separate mosque for women and other earmarked areas for them to pray. Where is this alleged discrimination?" he asked.

He further said that even the donations at the dargah are divided equally between the peerzadas and the peerzadis (the terms used for men and women respectively of Nizamuddin Aulia's lineage who run the shrine).

Nizami said there are around 500 such 'peer' families who live near the dargah.

‘Nizamuddin and Sabarimala cannot be compared’

Asked about the parallel drawn with Sabarimala, Nizami said the two cannot be compared. “Unlike Sabarimala that doesn’t allow women at all, our dargah only prohibits them from entering a tiny space within the complex. The reason is rooted in Shariat,” he said.

Those closely involved with the Sabarimala case, however, counter Nizami’s argument even as they agree that the two cannot be compared. Activist Anjali George, who led the ‘ready to wait’ campaign in Sabarimala supporting the age restriction for women, said, “Sabarimala is a pilgrimage. The temple is only the last step in the pilgrimage,” she said. “Also, this restriction is only for this particular pilgrimage and is not rooted in misogyny.”

In the same vein, advocate J Sai Deepak, who has argued in SC supporting Sabarimala tradition on behalf of groups People for Dharma and Chetana, told Swarajya that just as he would not compare the practice of Haji Ali dargah with the practice of Sabarimala because these are two different faiths and practices, he wouldn't compare Nizamuddin dargah with Sabarimala either.

He explained, “unfortunately, the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case doesn't observe any such nuances since it proceeds on the simplistic assumption that all exclusion is necessarily discrimination, regardless of what the basis may be. Given this blunt approach which lacks restraint, nuance and balance, every religious institution will now have to rewrite its practices in accordance with the Sabarimala judgement. In fact, petitioners in the Sabarimala case had prayed for gender discrimination to be abolished in all places of worship of all faiths.”

For the dargah, legal battle will be tough

Experts say it would be difficult for the Nizamuddin dargah management to justify the prohibition in court.

Sai said that the Sabarimala judgement, for good or bad, rightly or wrongly, applies to Nizamuddin dargah as well. “This is regardless of whether women are barred from entry into the dargah or just a small room in a dargah,” he said.

He added, “given the absence of the concept of a ‘divine feminine’ in Abrahamic faiths, Justice Indu Malhotra was absolutely right in foreseeing that the majority view in the Sabarimala judgement was bound to have graver consequences for minorities, which is what is playing out today. Clearly, the Sabarimala judgement merits review because such issues are best left to communities to decide without any arm of the state imposing its views as constitutional morality.”

It is to be noted that in the similar Haji Ali case, the trustees had taken the following position before the Bombay High Court but it was rejected by the court:

“The Trustees are unanimous on the point that entry of women in close proximity to the grave of a Male Muslim Saint is a grievous sin as per the Islam and as such the Trust is governed by the Constitution Law and particularly Article 26 of the Constitution of India which confers upon the Trust a Fundamental Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and as such interference is uncalled for by any Third Agency.

The existing arrangement for Women provides a Secure Place to them to offer prayers. This has been decided in the interest of safety and security of the women and they are close to the inner sanctorum of the Tomb as possible, considering the rush of Men, this arrangement has been welcomed by the women Pilgrims.

Hence the trustees unanimously, hold that at no point of time were women allowed to enter near the close proximity of the tomb of the saint and in fact the current arrangement at a Separate Entrance for women is more proximate to the Tomb than it earlier was.”

Another submission made by the trustees was that “menstruating women were unclean and impure in Islam and hence, could not offer prayers or visit the Dargah/Mosque, and that Islam refers to the issue of separation of men and boys from women and girls in social settings in Holy places.”

However, the stand was rejected by the court that ruled that the verses cited by the Haji Ali Trust did not throw any light on how women being too close to grave was sinful in Islam. The court in its verdict termed the prohibition a violation of the fundamental rights of a person enshrined in the Constitution, paving the way for entry of women into the sanctum sanctorum.