English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Lok Sabha passes Bill banning instant triple talaq, Rajya Sabha hurdle ahead

Published

on

Lok Sabha passes Bill banning instant triple talaq, Rajya Sabha hurdle ahead

All amendments moved by the Opposition members fall, Modi government to now work on floor management in Rajya Sabha to get Bill passed

In a historic move, though its merits may be debatable, the Lok Sabha on Thursday passed by a voice vote the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill which makes instant triple talaq a cognisable and non-bailable offence.

The Bill will now have to be introduced in Rajya Sabha where the Centre is not in a majority and will have to ensure that its floor management, in the wake of a united Opposition which has greater numbers in the House, helps in the passage of the Bill and its subsequent enactment as a law.

While the passage of the Bill in Lok Sabha, where the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led NDA coalition enjoys a brute majority, was expected the day’s proceedings also witnessed the Treasury benches and the Opposition spar on the various clauses of the draft legislation.

The appeal by Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier in the day to all political parties to support the Bill clearly had little effect on the Opposition. The government’s refusal of the Congress-led Opposition’s demand to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee of Parliament for wider consultation also evoked a sharp response from the Opposition. Several Opposition members, including Congress president Rahul Gandhi who had walked out of the debate in protest, were absent when the Bill was put to a voice vote by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan ensuring a smoother than expected passage of the draft legislation as the BJP had issued a whip to its MPs, ordering them to be present in the House during the voting process.

Union minister for law and justice Ravi Shankar Prasad, who introduced the Bill in the Lok Sabha amid protests from All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi and reservations expressed by the Congress party, RJD, All India Muslim League and Biju Janata Dal vociferously defended the draft legislation through the debate.

The Bill, once it clears the Rajya Sabha hurdle to be enacted as a law, seeks to criminalise instant triple talaq – a practice declared as “arbitrary, unconstitutional and unislamic” by the Supreme Court in August this year – and proposes a three year jail term and fine for any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq-e-biddat against his wife.

Soon after the Supreme Court had declared instant triple talaq as illegal and, in a minority verdict urged for a legislative framework to ban the practice, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had constituted a group of ministers comprising Union ministers Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley and Ravi Shankar Prasad to draft a stringent law that would act as a deterrent against talaq-e-biddat.

The Bill, drafted by the committee without any consultation with Islamic organisations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), parliamentarians who weren’t part of the group of ministers, social organisations who work with victims of instant triple talaq and other stakeholders, has evoked a mixed response from various sections of the Islamic community.

On Thursday, as Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad introduced the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Owaisi opposed it saying: “This bill violates fundamental rights and lacks legal coherence. It will be an injustice to Muslim women.”

Prasad retorted, asserting that the introduction of the Bill marked a “historic day” for India and its Muslim women and said that the draft legislation “is for women’s rights and justice and not regarding any prayer, ritual or religion.”

There are several aspects of the Bill and even the process adopted by the government for drafting it that the Opposition members and a section of the Islamic community are protesting against.

Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal, which Prasad had reportedly reached out to earlier to seek support for the Bill, has also opposed the draft legislation. Senior BJD MP Bhartruhari Mahtab told the Lok Sabha that his party does not support the Bill as “it is flawed” and has “many internal contradictions”.

The “internal contradictions” in the Bill that Mahtab talked about are many. For instance, while the Bill clearly declares in Section 3 that instant triple talaq – pronounced verball, in written or electronic form – shall be “void and illegal”, Section 5 and 6 of the draft Bill go on to propose a ‘subsistence allowance’ for a Muslim woman who is victim of talaq-e-biddat and declares that she is entitled to the custody of her minor children.

These sections of the draft law, when read together, raise a peculiar contradiction believe legal experts and also politicians who are opposing the Bill.

“The most glaring internal contradiction is found in Sections 5 and 6 which discuss post-divorce issues such as a “subsistence allowance” for the woman upon whom instant talaq “is pronounced” and the “custody of her minor children” as if her marriage is dissolved by the mere pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat. How could the authors of this Bill talk of post-divorce matters ignoring the fact that the pronouncement (instant talaq) has already been voided in Section 3 and cannot result in a divorce,” wonders A Faizur Rahman, secretary-general of the Chennai-based Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought, in an article for The Hindu.

Congress leader Salman Khurshid, who had assisted the Supreme Court as amicus curiae in the instant triple talaq case, has said that he feels that his party can’t support the Bill on two grounds. First, that the government “did not discuss the contents of the Bill with Opposition members before introducing it in Parliament” and second, due to the incoherent nature of the Bill itself. “If someone is lodged in prison as a punishment for saying triple talaq, who will take care of his family,” Khurshid said, alluding to the fact that the if, as per provisions of the Bill, a Muslim husband is jailed for pronouncing talaq-e-biddat then how would he pay the ‘subsistence allowance’ to his wife as guaranteed in the draft legislation.

Congress sources had told India Legal that although the party was likely to eventually support the Bill in Parliament, knowing well that it cannot afford to let the BJP take all credit for criminalizing a practice that has adversely affected lakhs of Muslim women across the country, it would vociferously protest against the Bill’s provision that makes instant triple talaq a “cognisable and non-bailable offence”.

For the Congress, the draft Bill presents a piquant situation. If the Grand Old Party, which has for decades been accused of appeasing the Muslims – a community that forms a significant votebank for the Congress – opposes the Bill, it stands to be accused by the BJP of betraying Muslim women. However, if it supports the draft legislation entirely, including the provisions that criminalise talaq-e-biddat, it stands to lose support among conservative Muslim men among the Sunni community who feel that the Bill impinges on a matter of Muslim Personal Law.

The BJP fielded several members during the debate to justify the draft legislation and also to, expectedly, slam the Congress for its appeasement of the Muslim hardliners in wake of the Supreme Court’s Shah Bano verdict.

Union minister MJ Akbar, a former Congress MP himself, hit out at those opposing the draft legislation, though he reserved his most strident criticism for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Slamming the AIMPLB for opposing the Bill, Akbar said: “What is the credibility of All India Muslim Personal Law Board? Who chose them to be community representatives? This slogan ‘Islam khatre mein hai’ was used before independence to divide India and is now being used to divide society, poison is being spread. You change law easily when it comes to men but you remember Allah when it comes to women.”

While the BJP MPs participating in the debate refused to spare any quarter for the Opposition, Owaisi too stuck to his criticism of the Bill, asserting: “My primary objection is two-fold: Parliament lacks legislative competence, bill lacks legislative coherence. It violates Article 15. Triple Talaq has been declared null and void already. It lacks rational nexus as sections under IPC exist…The Bill is constitutionally not valid. It will be injustice to Muslim women… If a Muslim man says triple talaq, then how is it valid when the court (the SC) has done away with it? This law will give handle to Muslim men to further subjugate women. They want to achieve their dream of putting Muslims behind the bars. Instead, create a corpus of Rs 1000 crore for Muslim women.”

With the debate over the Bill raging on well past the functioning hours of the Lok Sabha, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan decided to extend the sitting of the day’s session till the Bill was passed – which it was shortly past 7.30 pm.

Replying to the debate on the Bill, law minister Prasad took potshots at the Congress and Owaisi while asserting that: “We are not looking at this (Bill) from the lens of politics but from the lens of humanity. The jail term (for a Muslim husband pronouncing talaq-e-biddat) is up to three years and quantum of punishment will be decided by the magistrate and we have left it for the court to decide and its conscience. It is being said that we are breaking families, but when women were being abandoned, this argument found no place. Under Section 304B, if you try to burn a bride, then you will be imprisoned (sic),” Prasad said.

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com