Is it true that in Mumbai Housing societies segregrate based on religion ?

[zen]

It appears as if many in India are probably becoming too touchy .... I don't know much about renting in India but people need to do some research before going in to certain areas to live. For e.g., Would you expect a strict Jewish community to give a non-Jew a dwelling place, and then that person goes to media saying I have been discriminated against? A strict Jew would probably even hesitate to hire you for a job if you are not a Jew People renting should learn to respect the sensibilities of the people living in the area, many of whom could be living there for years and because they have certain preferences For e.g. imagine a non-veggie rents in a veggie community, and starts cooking meat regularly. The burning smell of flesh would have a negative impact on the entire community. Do you expect everyone to vacate the area or just ask that person to find a place that is more aligned with his/her interests? Let's not forgot that such communities are set up precisely because these people want to live in the way they prefer and w/o being disturbed Or a society targeted towards families for example. Why would they allow a known playboy to live in their community? Esp. when these people have chosen to invest in this area precisely because it is targeted towards families In India, my family home is in one of the posh areas of the city. Before selling the home, the homeowner need permission from the society which wants to ensure that only the right folks (for e.g. non-criminals) live in the area I guess there would be residences in India that offer places to everyone irrespective of their religion or race or eating preferences or whatever. And it is best to check such places out So what's next - a report on TV about someone complaining that he was stopped from smoking in front of kids. India is democratic and modern so it should allow this person to smoke in front of kids as "there is no law that states he should not do that." By stopping this person from smoking in front of kids and esp. when there is no "No Smoking" sign, he has been discriminated against! Ind should stand up against such discrimination :P

[moniker]

^ The society should be free to prohibit the emission of excessive smells and take action against the inhabitants who voluntary agreed to the conditions before moving in but ended up violating them. But denying housing to people just because they belong to a particular community is obviously discriminating. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not be using discriminatory practices carried out elsewhere to defend our own discriminatory actions. What such Jewish societies do is equally wrong. Unless the playboy is making out with his girlfriends in full public view of the families, or bringing in prostitutes, it isn't anyone's business who has consensual sex with whom behind closed doors. Smoking in public places is illegal in India, though people can smoke within their houses, cars or designated smoking areas in places like airports, bars etc. So that analogy doesn't hold good. And anyway passive smoking is pretty harmful, so societies should be free to have smoking related rules too. It would be discriminatory to not allow smokers at all, but regulation of smoking citing health reasons should be acceptable.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

^ The society should be free to prohibit the emission of excessive smells and take action against the inhabitants who voluntary agreed to the conditions before moving in but ended up violating them. But denying housing to people just because they belong to a particular community is obviously discriminating. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not be using discriminatory practices carried out elsewhere to defend our own discriminatory actions. What such Jewish societies do is equally wrong. Unless the playboy is making out with his girlfriends in full public view of the families, or bringing in prostitutes, it isn't anyone's business who has consensual sex with whom behind closed doors. Smoking in public places is illegal in India, though people can smoke within their houses, cars or designated smoking areas in places like airports, bars etc. So that analogy doesn't hold good. And anyway passive smoking is pretty harmful, so societies should be free to have smoking related rules too. It would be discriminatory to not allow smokers at all, but regulation of smoking citing health reasons should be acceptable.

It appears as if many in India are probably becoming too touchy .... I don't know much about renting in India but people need to do some research before going in to certain areas to live. For e.g., Would you expect a strict Jewish community to give a non-Jew a dwelling place, and then that person goes to media saying I have been discriminated against? A strict Jew would probably even hesitate to hire you for a job if you are not a Jew People renting should learn to respect the sensibilities of the people living in the area, many of whom could be living there for years and because they have certain preferences For e.g. imagine a non-veggie rents in a veggie community, and starts cooking meat regularly. The burning smell of flesh would have a negative impact on the entire community. Do you expect everyone to vacate the area or just ask that person to find a place that is more aligned with his/her interests? Let's not forgot that such communities are set up precisely because these people want to live in the way they prefer and w/o being disturbed Or a society targeted towards families for example. Why would they allow a known playboy to live in their community? Esp. when these people have chosen to invest in this area precisely because it is targeted towards families In India, my family home is in one of the posh areas of the city. Before selling the home, the homeowner need permission from the society which wants to ensure that only the right folks (for e.g. non-criminals) live in the area I guess there would be residences in India that offer places to everyone irrespective of their religion or race or eating preferences or whatever. And it is best to check such places out So what's next - a report on TV about someone complaining that he was stopped from smoking in front of kids. India is democratic and modern so it should allow this person to smoke in front of kids as "there is no law that states he should not do that." By stopping this person from smoking in front of kids and esp. when there is no "No Smoking" sign, he has been discriminated against! Ind should stand up against such discrimination :P

Both of you do know that by law no society can stop anyone from selling and anyone from buying an apartment.And once bought no society can stop the owner from staying in his apartment.

[zen]

^ The society should be free to prohibit the emission of excessive smells and take action against the inhabitants who voluntary agreed to the conditions before moving in but ended up violating them. But denying housing to people just because they belong to a particular community is obviously discriminating. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not be using discriminatory practices carried out elsewhere to defend our own discriminatory actions. What such Jewish societies do is equally wrong. Unless the playboy is making out with his girlfriends in full public view of the families, or bringing in prostitutes, it isn't anyone's business who has consensual sex with whom behind closed doors. Smoking in public places is illegal in India, though people can smoke within their houses, cars or designated smoking areas in places like airports, bars etc. So that analogy doesn't hold good. And anyway passive smoking is pretty harmful, so societies should be free to have smoking related rules too. It would be discriminatory to not allow smokers at all, but regulation of smoking citing health reasons should be acceptable.

Theoretically, you may have a case but practically some of the ideas are hard to implement for e.g. a) it is hard to control smell .... may be even practically impossible. Try burning something like plastic in your house and see if you can control the smell b) It is not about having sex in public/private but the impression such behavior (bringing in different girls) that leaves on kids or young adults (For same reason, families do not prefer to buy homes near red light areas) As for the smoking example, I used that to illustrate the point where claiming discrimination could be theoretically correct but practically not appropriate, it is not meant to accurately depict the smoking situation in Ind :P Now coming to the main point - I actually do not mind strict Jewish communities giving residences to people of their community only. So it is not an example of doing something wrong and justifying it but people being understanding enough to sensitives of others (in this case strict Jews') and not unnecessarily claiming discrimination Note that we are not talking about staying at a hotel or a hostel. Living in an area is a responsibility. Communities play an important role in growing up of children. Therefore, it is the right of a community or society to refuse residency to someone who may not turn out to be a good fit. Trying to force yourself on such communities could be an example of reverse discrimination :dontknow: Even companies don't necessarily hire the best candidate in terms of technical qualifications if he does not be appear to be a good cultural fit. It may be sad to see someone with lesser qualifications or skills get the job because he is a good cultural fit but that's how things work in many companies Whether you are looking for a life partner, a job or a house, ensuring the right fit is important. Theoretically, Hindus can marry Muslims, Muslims can marry Christians, etc., (i.e. theoretically, we can marry whoever we like) but practically, it could cause problems in many families or communities. And that's why we have classics such as Romeo and Juliet :--D If there are societies that want to remain closed for some reason, you leave them alone, and you go find the place that welcomes you or is open to everyone .... I am sure there would be places were you don't even know who lives next door :hmmmm: In India's case, democracy may not necessarily be about making things equal for everyone but giving diverse communities the freedom to practise what they believe in and everyone else being sensitive to their practices. Which is why we have Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, etc. living together for so many years Do we say that Muslims have to practise common law? Or Sikhs have to cut their hair like everyone else in military? No, we don't because we understand their sensitives and try to support them. Most people even stand up to support others' sensitivities .... There is no such argument for a Hindu where he can claim discrimination if he is not allowed to have 4 wives .... Being understanding to others sensitives is what makes countries like India great when compared to some of its neighbors .... Theoretically, it would be easy to say "one law for all" and everyone should be understanding enough to practise it (or some common law, may be State over religion, etc.) As I said, you took a good position theoretically (and may be even morally) but it may not always work practically esp. because human beings and relationships (in this case with the community you are above to live with) are complex

[moniker]

Both of you do know that by law no society can stop anyone from selling and anyone from buying an apartment.And once bought no society can stop the owner from staying in his apartment.

That's true. But rules of the society apply to all residents. If there are any disputes they can be taken to co-operative court or even civil court.

[Texan]

It appears as if many in India are probably becoming too touchy .... I don't know much about renting in India but people need to do some research before going in to certain areas to live. For e.g., Would you expect a strict Jewish community to give a non-Jew a dwelling place, and then that person goes to media saying I have been discriminated against? A strict Jew would probably even hesitate to hire you for a job if you are not a Jew People renting should learn to respect the sensibilities of the people living in the area, many of whom could be living there for years and because they have certain preferences For e.g. imagine a non-veggie rents in a veggie community, and starts cooking meat regularly. The burning smell of flesh would have a negative impact on the entire community. Do you expect everyone to vacate the area or just ask that person to find a place that is more aligned with his/her interests? Let's not forgot that such communities are set up precisely because these people want to live in the way they prefer and w/o being disturbed Or a society targeted towards families for example. Why would they allow a known playboy to live in their community? Esp. when these people have chosen to invest in this area precisely because it is targeted towards families In India, my family home is in one of the posh areas of the city. Before selling the home, the homeowner need permission from the society which wants to ensure that only the right folks (for e.g. non-criminals) live in the area I guess there would be residences in India that offer places to everyone irrespective of their religion or race or eating preferences or whatever. And it is best to check such places out So what's next - a report on TV about someone complaining that he was stopped from smoking in front of kids. India is democratic and modern so it should allow this person to smoke in front of kids as "there is no law that states he should not do that." By stopping this person from smoking in front of kids and esp. when there is no "No Smoking" sign, he has been discriminated against! Ind should stand up against such discrimination :P

Most people do their research and know which area they would fit in. Those who don't face rejection. The problem is not that some people could not find accommodation in a place they might not be welcome, it is when the media selectively tries to project it as a "Muslim victimization issue". I pointed out that even Maharashtrians face discrimination in Maharashtra for being Maharashtrians. But, the mass media won't run hour long debates on that topic.

[Desi Cartman]

If that lady isn't lying then she had permission from the owner as well as other people living the apartment so what was the agents problem here. I don't understand because it's not like neighbors or the owners were against her moving in. Have I missed something here?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

That's true. But rules of the society apply to all residents. If there are any disputes they can be taken to co-operative court or even civil court.

Where the fundamental rights of a person will tower over any other law which curtail them.Thats the Supreme Court ruling and that the constitution. Plus the huge amount of negative publicity that society and its members will get in the media and political parties jumping in,the society will be pushed to a corner.

[Kalia_Test]

Both of you do know that by law no society can stop anyone from selling and anyone from buying an apartment.And once bought no society can stop the owner from staying in his apartment.

I am not sure what exactly is meant here but this is incorrect. Assume hypothetically that I and 10 other non-relatives form a Society under Societies Act for welfare of some community ( lets say Parsis ) and get the Society registered with its Bye Laws. Now, my Bye Law in the Society membership says that the Apartments which are operated by the Society need to be sold ONLY to Parsis. As members, all have agreed to the bye laws. Tomorrow, if one of the member wants to sell his Apartment to say a Brahmin Hindu as he is willing to pay more - it is NOT allowed and the Society can approach the court to stop the transaction. This is without prejudice to any other Right that an individual might enjoy ( Fundamental or anything else guaranteed by any other Statute ). The basic reason is that our Constitution recognizes Societies and need for preservation of certain communities/cultures,etc. By signing up to be members of a Society ( say Parsis in our case for the Apartment concerned ) , the member is deemed to have wilfully let go of other rights that he might otherwise have been entitled to i.e right to sell property to highest bidder. This was the stance of Supreme Court multiple times - most famously in the 2005 case - Zoroastrian Co-Operative ... vs District Registrar Co-Operative ... on 15 April, 2005 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/713373/

33. The appellant Society was formed with the object of providing housing to the members of the Parsi community, a community admittedly a minority which apparently did not claim that status when the Constituent Assembly was debating the Constitution. But even then, it is open to that community to try to preserve its culture and way of life and in that process, to work for the advancement of members of that community by enabling them to acquire membership in a society and allotment of lands or buildings in one's capacity as a member of that society, to preserve its object of advancement of the community. It is also open to the members of that community, who came together to form the co-operative society, to prescribe that members of that community for whose benefit the society was formed, alone could aspire to be members of that society. There is nothing in the Bombay Act or the Gujarat Act which precludes the formation of such a society. In fact, the history of legislation referred to earlier, would indicate that such coming together of groups was recognized by the Acts enacted in that behalf concerning the co-operative movement. Even today, we have Women's co-operative societies, we have co-operative societies of handicapped persons, we have co-operative societies of labourers and agricultural workers. We have co-operative societies of religious groups who believe in vegetarianism and abhore non-vegetarian food. It will be impermissible, so long as the law stands as it is, to thrust upon the society of those believing in say, vegetarianism, persons who are regular consumers of non-vegetarian food. May be, in view of the developments that have taken place in our society and in the context of the constitutional scheme, it is time to legislate or bring about changes in Co-operative Societies Acts regarding the formation of societies based on such a thinking or concept. But that cannot make the formation of a society like the appellant Society or the qualification fixed for membership therein, opposed to public policy or enable the authorities under the Act to intervene and dictate to the society to change its fundamental character.

34. Another ground relied on by the Authorities under the Act and the High Court to direct the acceptance of respondent No.3 as a member in the Society is that the bye-law confining membership to a person belonging to the Parsi community and the insistence on respondent No.2 selling the building or the flats therein only to members of the Parsi community who alone are qualified to be members of the Society, would amount to an absolute restraint on alienation within the meaning of Section 10 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot have any application to transfer of membership. Transfer of membership is regulated by the bye-laws. The bye-laws in that regard are not in challenge and cannot effectively be challenged in view of what we have held above. Section 30 of the Act itself places restriction in that regard. There is no plea of invalidity attached to that provision. Hence, the restriction in that regard cannot be invalidated or ignored by reference to Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act.

--------------- If you meant something else, kindly ignore. From my understanding - I am fully entitled to form a co-operative Society under Societies Act with minimum 10 non-related members, construct an Apartment Complex by Pooling funds and placing a restriction ( through the Society Bye-Law) that the tenants/new buyers have to be be vegetarians only. None of the members can violate it - Period. No Transfer of Property Act or any Right to Equality Stuff is applicable.

[Kalia_Test]

Where the fundamental rights of a person will tower over any other law which curtail them.Thats the Supreme Court ruling and that the constitution. Plus the huge amount of negative publicity that society and its members will get in the media and political parties jumping in,the society will be pushed to a corner.

See my post above. There are many other cases where Societies Act / Co-operatives were upheld and reasons were clearly mentioned. - Signing up to be a member of a Society is deemed wilfully relinquishing certain Individual rights. - Constitution recognizes need for Co-operatives and communities,etc.

[mishra]

When a owner sells his flat to a potential buyer, he needs to get approval from the co-operative society committe before he can proceed with the transaction. The society can deny permisson which can prevent the transaction. In a way this is a good thing, since the person selling the house will not care much about the background of the buyer as long as he is getting a good amount for his flat.

^Exactly. Here, some gentleman was moaning about the incident of meeting the society committe after his offer was accepted on a property ( this was several years back). He was calling it a legal racist mechanism. So such actions are open to interpretation.

[Crookbond]

There you go.... Just within a couple of hours of my post, here's an article about how a Marathi guy was denied a flat in Mumbai. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Intolerant-society-Marathi-man-denied-flat-in-veg-only-tower-in-Mumbai/articleshow/47476428.cms Extract:

Hope Barkha Dutt runs hour long debates on her "secular" NDTV show about how Mr. Rahate faced discrimination despite being Maharashtrian in Maharashtra.

The flat was denied due to him being non-vegetarian, not because he was Maharashtrian.

[Texan]

The flat was denied due to him being non-vegetarian' date=' not because he was Maharashtrian.[/quote'] If you read the article, he was told that flats are not available for Maharashtrians, Muslims and other non-vegetarians. Many many Maharashtrians are vegetarians. In fact, if you probably did research on the subject, you might find that majority of Maharashtrians are actually vegetarian. The article does not state that his dietary preference was even asked. So, prima facie, it appears like he was denied a flat based solely on his last name, which sounds Maharashtrian.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I am not sure what exactly is meant here but this is incorrect. Assume hypothetically that I and 10 other non-relatives form a Society under Societies Act for welfare of some community ( lets say Parsis ) and get the Society registered with its Bye Laws. Now, my Bye Law in the Society membership says that the Apartments which are operated by the Society need to be sold ONLY to Parsis. As members, all have agreed to the bye laws. Tomorrow, if one of the member wants to sell his Apartment to say a Brahmin Hindu as he is willing to pay more - it is NOT allowed and the Society can approach the court to stop the transaction. This is without prejudice to any other Right that an individual might enjoy ( Fundamental or anything else guaranteed by any other Statute ). The basic reason is that our Constitution recognizes Societies and need for preservation of certain communities/cultures,etc. By signing up to be members of a Society ( say Parsis in our case for the Apartment concerned ) , the member is deemed to have wilfully let go of other rights that he might otherwise have been entitled to i.e right to sell property to highest bidder. This was the stance of Supreme Court multiple times - most famously in the 2005 case - Zoroastrian Co-Operative ... vs District Registrar Co-Operative ... on 15 April, 2005 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/713373/ --------------- If you meant something else, kindly ignore. From my understanding - I am fully entitled to form a co-operative Society under Societies Act with minimum 10 non-related members, construct an Apartment Complex by Pooling funds and placing a restriction ( through the Society Bye-Law) that the tenants/new buyers have to be be vegetarians only. None of the members can violate it - Period. No Transfer of Property Act or any Right to Equality Stuff is applicable.

Parsis are recognised as minority and are allowed to form such societies under the constitution.Same with Anglo Indians.Even here the courts may strike down a certain bye law if it is againist the constitution.Do you think that if a Parsi's daughter marries a Hindu their children will not be allowed to inherit their mother's property because of society's bye laws? But most societies are not formed by such minorities.Secondly no Society bye law can over rule the constitution and the fundamental rights of the people.Heck the courts even strike down laws passed by the Parliament if it infringes the fundamental rights even slightly. As you may be well aware that majority of apartments today are constructed by builders and then the residents form societies to help govern the building.Even there these societies try to enforce rules regarding who can buy or rent a house.Again the laws dont allow it. Except in cases of certain minorities and under exceptional circumstances no one has the right to stop you from selling your property.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

See my post above. There are many other cases where Societies Act / Co-operatives were upheld and reasons were clearly mentioned. - Signing up to be a member of a Society is deemed wilfully relinquishing certain Individual rights. - Constitution recognizes need for Co-operatives and communities,etc.

Again there are restrictions.What kind of society it is?Minority or not. You are only talking about co operative socities or minority societies.Things go beyond that. What if i mortgage my flat in the society in a bank and then default and ask the bank to take possession under the Sarfesi act and auction?Which society will stop the bank?

[Kalia_Test]

Parsis are recognised as minority and are allowed to form such societies under the constitution.Same with Anglo Indians.Even here the courts may strike down a certain bye law if it is againist the constitution.Do you think that if a Parsi's daughter marries a Hindu their children will not be allowed to inherit their mother's property because of society's bye laws? But most societies are not formed by such minorities.Secondly no Society bye law can over rule the constitution and the fundamental rights of the people.Heck the courts even strike down laws passed by the Parliament if it infringes the fundamental rights even slightly. As you may be well aware that majority of apartments today are constructed by builders and then the residents form societies to help govern the building.Even there these societies try to enforce rules regarding who can buy or rent a house.Again the laws dont allow it. Except in cases of certain minorities and under exceptional circumstances no one has the right to stop you from selling your property.

I respectfully disagree. Bye-laws are vetted before the Society is approved. I am not sure what the confusion is but Societies Act is Civil in nature i.e Bye-Laws deal with Properties, Housing Colonies and stuff like that - Never Personal Laws or Criminal ( i.e they will not touch marriage/divorce or say that in my Housing Complex it is OK to beat somebody ).If they do - Court will strike it down. Also this Fundamental Right Stuff is wrong - If my parents have 1 crore Property and I wilfully sign that I relinquish my claim on the Property in favor of my sibling, I CANNOT wake up later and say that I have an EQUAL right. Signing up to be a member of Society is EXACTLY that. Societies Act is as much part of Constitution as anything else. We can obviously find many instances of Societies trying to take advantage of some loophole,etc and Courts will judge it on case by case basis. Same is case with morons trying to use Fundamental rights,etc to drive their agenda. Take Women's Society and co-operations - Can any male go and challenge it under Right of Equality and say that he should also be a member? Take Handicapped People Co-operative Society - Can an able-bodied man or woman go and invoke Fundamental Right of Equality and be a member? Even in the case I quoted, the honorable Supreme Court cited instances of vegetarianism also as a valid reason for a society. It is not for just a privileged few like Parsis or Anglo-Indians... I can site, quote multiple Supreme Court Judgements ( pls do not go with the Parsis example I used - I quoted it as it was famous) that ALWAYS ( unless the specific case proves malafide intentions of either the appelant or respondent ) goes by the right of Societies to form their communities,etc. Pls do note that no individual can be COERCED to be a member of any Society - that is a different matter altogether. Even at a Basic level, if I sign up to be a member of a Society that wants Vegetarianism and then abandon it, I cannot expect Courts to come to my rescue - I have signed it MYSELF. Same like a IOU Bond.

[Kalia_Test]

Again there are restrictions.What kind of society it is?Minority or not. You are only talking about co operative socities or minority societies.Things go beyond that. What if i mortgage my flat in the society in a bank and then default and ask the bank to take possession under the Sarfesi act and auction?Which society will stop the bank?

http://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/co-op-banks-can-t-use-sarfaesi-for-debt-recovery-gujarat-hc-113042300027_1.html

The high court here has said cooperative banks cannot use the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (Sarfaesi), 2002, for recovery of debts from its defaulters. A bench of Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and J B Pardiwala, in a common judgement, today declared the central government notification dated January 28, 2003, bringing cooperative societies within the purview of the Act as null and void.

Courts will...The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ( SARFESI) is NOT overriding on Societies and Co-operatives . Case by case evaluation might be done ( as is case with anything I suppose ) My only humble POINT in this is - Societies and Co-Operatives have their place in the Constitution - There is nothing violating any Fundamental Right or anything if I am a member of a society that promotes vegetarianism ( and I have signed up for the membership of an approved Society under full conscience and under no coersion) . I am bloody damn entitled to not sell/rent my flat to a non-vegetarian and the society is bloody damn entitled to force me not to do it ( If I indeed choose to rent out/sell to a non-vegetarian ).

[Kalia_Test]

BTW - Sunnyji What I have posted earlier/ am posting now is to the best of my understanding. Indian Laws are complex and every now and then, contradictions come.... For example - to your question on what happens if the daughter of Parsi marries a Hindu and their heir wants a share of Property - I have no answer but can only speculate as below - It is obviously an ancestral Property of the heir ( not self-earned ). Indian Law has clear distinction of Property division between ancestral and self-earned. - Since it is ancestral Property, the obligations of the ancestor ( what the ancestor had to bind by ) have to be met i.e the Society membership rules have to be upheld. So the heir needs to transfer membership ( and therefore the Property ) to an eligible member. Above is extreme example. I would presume most Bye-Laws have clauses relating to such scenarios. Else, it will be case for Court. I am sure such scenarios might have already occurred. Need to check Judgements ( but I doubt it will be uniform in all cases ) given that Inheritance Laws themselves are not same for all Indians :facepalm:

[Rajiv]

Remember there was news about Emraan Hashmi denied a flat in Pali Hill http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-emraan-hashmi-alleges-he-was-denied-a-house-as-hes-muslim-1278715 Nibhana Bldg - well, I didn't buy that coz 2 acquaintances live there. One is a intercaste, husband muslim who died and wife is a sindhi who still lives there with kids, 2nd is DJ Aqeel who grew up there, so that emraan's news was outright lie. Its nothing about actor lifetstyle too, whole Pali hill is filled with bollywood

[Crookbond]

If you read the article' date=' he was told that flats are not available for Maharashtrians, Muslims and [b']other non-vegetarians. .

The key operating word being "other non-vegetarians" which changes the tenor of the sentence. I banned Texan, Sabby and other trolls from ICF. --> This statement doesn't mean that I banned because you were Texan but I banned you for being a troll. Don't just literally threadbare statements for the sake of it. It is OK to sometimes misinterpret and being wrong. All of us make mistakes.

Many many Maharashtrians are vegetarians. In fact, if you probably did research on the subject, you might find that majority of Maharashtrians are actually vegetarian.

NO majority of Maharashtrians aren't vegetarians - go do your research. I have lived 20+ years of my life in Maharashtra and probable 1/10 of Maharashtrians who are Brahmins are vegetarian. It's got nothing to do with Maharashtrian but more of Brahmin-ism that are vegetarians. Maharashtra encompasses the Konkan coast and the coast is always non-vegetarian because their staple diet is fish. The coastal regions (not just in MH but around the world) are also most populated.

The article does not state that his dietary preference was even asked. So, prima facie, it appears like he was denied a flat based solely on his last name, which sounds Maharashtrian.

The article also states that the person was denied because his approach was "suspicious". So, there is NO "prima facie" here.