Women groups raise 10 concerns in Triple Talaq Bill

Agencies
December 28, 2018

New Delhi,  Dec 28: A group of 40 women rights activists has opposed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018, in its present form, raising concerns over 10 points in the Bill which was passed by the Lok Sabha Thursday.

In a statement, they urged the government to withdraw the Bill from consideration in the Rajya Sabha, and review the fundamental flaws pending broad-based community consultations.

Following are the 10 concerns raised by the activists:

1. This Bill disregards the fact that its very objective - to protect the rights of married Muslim women and prohibit divorce by pronouncing 'talaq' by their husband - has already been achieved by the judgement of the Supreme Court.

2. The Supreme Court in Shayara Bano's case held that the practice of 'talaq-e-bidat' is manifestly arbitrary, and therefore, unconstitutional. An act that has no legal consequences being made a criminal offence, cognizable and non-bailable is manifestly arbitrary and therefore, violative of Article 14.

3. There is no rationale to criminalise the practice of talaq-e-biddat and imprison Muslim men. The effect of the Supreme Court's judgment is that the marriage is legally valid and the persons continue to be lawfully wedded. Now, the Muslim men will be incarcerated, thus violating the rights of conjugality of these two persons. Criminalising the husband would also lead to unwanted separation between the couple, against the wishes of the wife.

4. Since Muslim marriage is a civil contract between two adult persons, the procedures to be followed on its breakdown should also be of civil nature. Penal action to discourage the practice of instant triple talaq is a myopic view as it leaves many other issues of economic and social security of women unaddressed.

5. The government should strengthen the negotiating capacities of women by providing them economic and socio-legal support rather than criminalising the pronouncement of triple talaq.

6. The pronouncement of triple talaq having no legal consequences on the marriage means that such a proclamation by a Muslim man is essentially a desertion of the wife. In any of the Personal Laws, the desertion of wife by a man is not a criminal offence. Therefore, while the Bill aims to criminalise the pronouncement of talaq, in effect, it is only criminalising the act of desertion of a Muslim wife by her husband. Criminalising desertion by Muslim men, which constitutes only a civil offence for men of all other religions, is discriminatory under the Constitution.

7. If there is violence within the marriage in addition to the pronouncement of triple talaq, the woman could use the existing provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. These two laws, taken together, represent a wide spectrum of legal options available for women survivors of domestic violence, encompassing both criminal and civil provisions.

8. No economic and socio-legal support is provided by the government in the Bill to women, children and other dependents, when the erring men are put behind bars. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 under Section 21 already provides for the aggrieved woman to be provided custody of the child and Section 20 provides for maintenance to be paid to her. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also provides for maintenance for the aggrieved woman. In fact, the Bill takes a step back in only providing for subsistence allowance for the woman. Subsistence allowance is not defined and is open to interpretation.

9. The Bill allows for the aggrieved woman as well as anyone related to her by blood or marriage to be the complainant. There is no provision for a relative to seek the consent of an aggrieved woman before filing a complaint. The problem becomes particularly acute in the case of inter-religious marriages of Muslim men with a woman of another religion.

10. The terms of imprisonment up to three years is arbitrary and excessive. Serious crimes like Causing death by rash or negligent act (IPC Sec 304A), Rioting (IPC Sec 147), Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class (IPC Sec 295) - all punishable by two years in jail or fine or both. All these criminal acts have lesser punishment than pronouncing triple talaq, which is arbitrary and excessive, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The statement was signed by 40 activists and women's groups, including Ayesha Kidwai of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Kavita Krishnan of All India Progressive Women's Association (AIPWA), Shabanam Hashmi, Anhad and groups like Bebaak Collective, National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), Humsafar Support Centre, Kashmir women's collective, Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal (MASUM), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Women's Research & Action Group among others.

The Lok Sabha Thursday passed the Bill which criminalises the practice of instant triple talaq, with the government rejecting the contention that it was aimed at targeting a particular community.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 was passed by the Lower House with 245 voting in favour and 11 opposing the legislation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 17,2020

New Delhi, Jun 17: Petrol and diesel prices were increased in metros on Wednesday, marking the eleventh straight day of increase since state-owned oil companies returned to the normal practice of daily reviews following a 12-week pause. With effect from 6 am, the price of petrol was increased by 55 paise per litre, and diesel by 69 paise per litre in Delhi, compared to the previous day. While the price of petrol was revised to Rs 77.28 per litre in the national capital from Rs 76.73 per litre the previous day, the diesel rate was increased to Rs 75.79 per litre from Rs 75.19 per litre, according to notifications from state-run Indian Oil Corporation, the country's largest fuel retailer. In the 11-day period, the price of petrol has been increased by a cumulative Rs 6.02 per litre, and diesel by Rs 6.49 per litre.

International crude oil prices retreated on Wednesday, weighed down by an increase in US crude inventories and worries about a potential second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. Brent crude futures - the global benchmark for crude oil - were last seen trading 1.0 per cent lower at $40.56 per barrel.

State-run oil marketing companies revise the prices of petrol and diesel from time to time, besides aviation turbine fuel (ATF) - or jet fuel - and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). However, since March 16, the oil companies had kept petrol and diesel prices on hold, possibly due to the volatility in global oil markets.

Fuel retailing in the country is dominated by state refiners - Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The three own about 90 per cent of the retail fuel outlets in the country.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

Jan 13: India lost more than $1.33 billion to internet restrictions in 2019 as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government pushed ahead with his party’s Hindu nationalist agenda, raising tensions and sparking nationwide protests.

The worst shutdown has been in Kashmir, where after intermittent closures in the first half of the year, the internet has been cut off since Aug. 5 following the government’s decision to revoke the special autonomous status of the country’s only Muslim-majority state, a study said. The prologued closure was criticized by India’s highest court, which ruled Friday that the “limitless” internet shutdown enforced by the government for the last five months was illegal and asked that it be reviewed.

India imposed more internet restrictions than any other large democracy, according to the Cost of Internet Shutdowns 2019 report released by Top10VPN, a U.K.-based digital privacy and security research group. The South Asian nation recorded the third-highest losses after Iraq and Sudan, which lost $2.31 billion and $1.86 billion respectively to disruptions. Worldwide internet restrictions caused losses worth $8.05 billion, the report said.

The cost of internet blackouts was calculated using indicators from groups including the World Bank, International Telecommunication Union, and the Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Center. It includes social media shutdowns in its calculations.

India’s ministry of information and technology didn’t respond to an email seeking a response to the report’s findings.

‘Conservative Estimates’

Through 2019, India shut access to the internet for over 4,000 hours. The report added shutdowns in India were often narrowly targeted, down to the level of blocking city districts for a few hours to allow security forces to restore order. Many of these incidents were not included in the report.

“These are conservative estimates,” said Simon Migliano, head of research at U.K.-based Top10VPN. “Internet shutdowns are increasing and it shows a damaging trend.”

India’s other major internet disruptions coincided with two moves by the government that affect India’s Muslim minority. The first disruption took place in November in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan after the Supreme Court handed a victory to Hindu groups over Muslim petitioners in a long-simmering dispute over a plot of land.

There were further disruptions in December when protests erupted against the introduction of a religion-based law that allows undocumented migrants of all faiths except Islam from neighbouring countries to seek Indian citizenship. The government enforced shutdowns across Uttar Pradesh and some Northeastern states in order to quell the protests, the report said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 29,2020

Jan 29: Multiple organisations have called for a Bharat Bandh today in order to protest against the recently passed Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Bharat  Bandh today has been organised in Surat in Gujarat, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. Increased security measures have been put in place in the three states keeping in view the call for shutdown.

According to media reports, the call for Bharat Bandh was given by Maulana Sajjad Nomani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). This was to protest against the controversial CAA-NRC. This call is supported by an NGO based in Surat, Versatile Minorities Forum (VMF). Apart from the VMF, the call for strikes has been supported by organizations such as Bahujan Kranti Morcha, National Association of Street Vendors of India Surat chapter and the Textile Market Workers' Union.

The workers of the VMF were also spotted distributing pamphlets and urging people to support the strike. Several shopkeepers have also put up notices stating that their shops will be shut for the day.

Earlier, Bharat Bandh was called by 10 trade unions and several bank employees in order to protest against the "anti-people policies of the government" on January 8 and 9. A few violent incidents during this Bharat Bandh were reported in West Bengal.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.