A S Uraizee: A rare Muslim Gandhian who fought for human rights

A “Muslim Gandhian” in Uraizee’s case meant a Muslim who followed Gandhian values while defending human rights. The description mattered because he connected his faith and community life with Sarvodaya, nonviolence, service, and persuasion rather than power or confrontation.

His family history shaped this path. His parents’ marriage was solemnized in Gandhiji’s presence at Sabarmati Ashram. They often travelled through Gujarat with the Mahatma. Uraizee later became a lifelong Sarvodaya member and a trustee of Mani Bhavan in Mumbai. He was gentle in manner but firm when rights were threatened.

His example showed that Gandhian principles could include criticism of one’s own community and resistance to state action. He opposed triple talaq while also opposing attempts to impose a uniform civil code on Muslims. His life linked personal humility with public courage and practical legal action.

Uraizee’s career joined legal practice, judging, civil-liberties work, and Gandhian service. As a lawyer, he represented people facing powerful opponents. As a judge, he served for nine months and was remembered by court staff and lawyers. As a human-rights activist, he challenged cases he believed violated basic rights.

He worked with PUCL and defended two Sikh professors arrested after Indira Gandhi’s assassination. He also fought Maulana Ziauddin Bukhari over flats sold to multiple homebuyers and won. His appointment as judge followed a letter from Justice Lentin. In court, he was described as gentle, compassionate, and committed to persuasion.

As a Sarvodaya member and later trustee of Mani Bhavan, he carried forward Gandhian service. These roles mattered because they reinforced one another. His legal work gave people protection, his judging brought fairness, and his activism extended concern beyond his own community.

PUCL stood for the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, an organisation concerned with protecting civil liberties and human rights. Uraizee’s involvement showed that defending rights meant supporting accused people even when the allegations followed a traumatic political assassination.

After Indira Gandhi’s assassination, two Sikh professors from Mumbai were arrested. They were charged, along with CRPF officer SS Mann, with conspiring to kill her. Uraizee stood up for the professors as a PUCL member. The article calls the case false, and says Rajiv Gandhi’s government dropped it years later.

The episode shows the value of legal and civic intervention before guilt is assumed. Uraizee did not defend the accusation itself. He defended the professors’ rights against a serious charge and state action. His approach treated due process as essential, even during intense public fear and political pressure.

Uraizee’s case against Maulana Ziauddin Bukhari protected homebuyers by challenging the sale of the same flats to different people. The dispute mattered because the housing scheme was intended for lower middle-class Muslims, yet its buyers discovered that their booked homes had been sold multiple times.

Bukhari was a powerful figure, known as then chief minister Sharad Pawar’s right-hand man. Uraizee represented the affected buyers and led the fight. Some people supporting the case received threats and worse, but the article says nobody dared threaten Uraizee, whose integrity was widely respected. He won against Bukhari.

The outcome gave the homebuyers a legal challenge to the scheme’s unfair conduct. It also showed how an incorruptible lawyer could confront influence without intimidation. Uraizee’s standing helped sustain the campaign, while the legal victory demonstrated that powerful connections did not make misconduct immune from challenge.

Uraizee served as a judge for nine months. The short tenure remained memorable to court staff and lawyers because of his conduct and independence. His judging career also revealed how little his personal circumstances changed despite receiving a judicial appointment.

He continued living in a one-room flat in a crumbling building. Its balcony doubled as the kitchen. Although government accommodation had been promised, he did not receive it. He was not even reimbursed for petrol used while travelling to court on his moped. These details highlight the practical hardships surrounding his judicial service.

The article presents this modest life alongside his strong public reputation. He was respected in predominantly Muslim Nagpada despite his progressive views and criticism of his own community. His circumstances did not prevent him from serving, but they show the gap between public responsibility and institutional support during those nine months.

Uraizee took two positions that are often treated as contradictory. He opposed the practice of triple talaq, showing that he supported reform when he believed a practice harmed rights. At the same time, he opposed the BJP’s attempts to thrust a uniform civil code on Muslims.

The key difference was between opposing a practice and imposing a legal framework from outside. Uraizee could criticise his own community while resisting state discrimination against it. The article says he was articulate about discrimination by the state, even though he never spoke about discrimination he personally faced.

His position reflected independent judgment rather than automatic loyalty to either side. He supported protection from harmful practices, but rejected coercive political pressure aimed at Muslims. That balance helped explain why he remained respected in Nagpada despite his progressive views and public criticism of his own community.

Civil liberties are basic rights and freedoms that protect people from unjust restrictions, accusations, or abuse of power. Defending them matters because authority can be misused by governments, institutions, or influential individuals. Uraizee’s work shows that rights protection cannot be limited to one political side or one community.

As a PUCL member, he defended two Sikh professors arrested after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in what the article calls a false case. As a lawyer, he challenged Maulana Ziauddin Bukhari over flats sold to multiple buyers. Bukhari was a powerful figure, yet Uraizee won the case for affected homebuyers.

These examples show the mechanism of rights advocacy: use legal action, public courage, and persuasion to hold power accountable. Uraizee also criticised his own community while opposing state discrimination against it. His approach suggests that fair rights work requires consistency, even when the opponent is politically or socially powerful.