THE TRIPLE TALAQ BILL

The triple talaq bill did not go through in the Rajya Sabha after all, much to the chagrin of some media channels. Appeasement charges ruled the day. Both sides in Parliament screamed betrayal of the ‘weaker sex’ – if that description is not itself discriminatory.

BJP said Congress and other opposition parties were giving in to vote bank politics to deny women their rights – as if women do not have votes. Congress and the rest said the government was reluctant to do enough for women. Somewhere there was a formal rejection of criminalisation. But all statements were ex cathedra and without sound reasoning.

What was lacking in logic was sought to be made up by sound and fury. Without disrespect to BJP their case boils down to ‘use gender justice to inflict injustice on Muslims’, or kill a bird twice with the same stone. It is therefore important to understand the entire matter.

Talaq is effective even if said once (of course with such conditions as just cause and after mediation by representatives of both husband and wife). But during the iddat of three months – during which the wife cannot remarry – it can be taken back by the husband. After a month or two it can be repeated to reaffirm but can still be taken back.

However when it is said the third time at the end of iddat it becomes final, though even without the third time talaq becomes final when iddat expires. The only difference between two pronouncements and three pronouncements is that the couple are free to remarry in case of the latter but not in case of the former.

The triple instantaneous talaq is – or was – essentially talaq of the three times but said at one sitting instead of over three months. So essentially the only difference was that the husband denied himself the right to take it back or indeed to remarry the ex-wife after iddat. For the woman there was no real difference so long as the husband’s obligation of the iddat period were observed as they must.

Now the Supreme Court has declared triple talaq to be void. That means, as has been thought from times immemorial, that triple talaq pronouncement is treated as a single talaq as such but the man would still have the iddat period to either take it back or pronounce it again. There is no other difference.

However, the NDA government’s legislation revives triple talaq to declare it void afresh. Either way, there is no legal consequence of pronouncing talaq three times at once other than the effect of having said it once. In the circumstances, it makes no sense to impose criminal liability on something that has no legal consequences.

Even if as a policy decision it is felt that some deterrent is called for, it could have been done without resorting to criminal culpability. It is meaningless to compare this with other criminal acts, because in each such case there is a consequence whereas after the Supreme Court judgment there is no consequence of pronouncing talaq three times at the same time.

We must be careful that there is no case against talaq per se or the entire Islamic system of marriage and divorce, described by Justice Rohinton Nariman as “astonishingly modern”. The learned judge clearly had in mind that contrary to the widely believed fact, Islam provides for a woman’s right to seek talaq by delegation, khula or dissolution of marriage, fask or annulment, mubaraat or dissolution by mutual consent. Besides for the marriage itself the woman has a right to mahar or consideration to give her consent. The nikahnama (marriage contract) is integral to the wedding ceremony and is signed by witnesses in addition to the parties.

As a matter of good public policy, criminal law must not intrude into personal lives of citizens unless there is a pressing ground for it such as physical violence. Many grounds of cruelty within a marriage are sufficient for divorce but certainly do not qualify for criminal prosecution. There is good reason for that because no civilised society approves of watchdogs in the family home.

It is sad that some people point to what other countries do as though we have to permanently remain followers rather than show the way to an enlightened legal system. With triple talaq gone it is a waste of time to decry people for being sympathetic to triple talaq or seek punishment for those who foolishly utter it despite its ineffectiveness.

Shorn of the noise and harangue the issue is not really about the empowerment of women, because in that case the government should have been looking at enhancing the benefit and protection granted by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 and other protective legislation. Ironically the present legislation is titled the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017.

The real intent is clearly to chip away at personal laws to bring in the uniform civil code. If that be so let there be at least an honest debate, and let the right view prevail.

-the article was published in TOI authored by salman khurshid. Only the heading has been edited by femvoix.blogspot.com 

SOUTH DELHI GANG RAPE: IS DELHI SAFE ?

For more than an hour on Sunday night, a chartered bus drove through one of the busiest South Delhi stretches with a 23-year-old being tortured and raped inside by a group of men.
No one, not even the three PCR vans stationed on the way, noticed anything amiss. No one stopped the bus with the tinted windows and drawn curtains. And the bus was not required to stop anywhere, as the route it took — Munirka towards airport — is a signal-free stretch.

The victim, a paramedic student who had come to Delhi for an internship from Uttarakhand, is fighting for life at Safdarjung Hospital. Her friend, a 28-year-old software engineer with HCL, was also stripped and assaulted, police said. The two boarded the bus in Munirka and were thrown out of the bus in Mahipalpur.
As outrage mounted, police swung into action. Traffic police began probing whether the chartered bus was plying without permission and if police personnel failed to detect the violation.
Police sources said the Whiteline bus was also being used to transport students of two schools in Delhi and Noida.

As the woman and her friend were tortured inside between 9.15 pm and 10.20 pm, the bus crossed a PCR van at Rao Tula Ram Marg, one at Olaf Palme Marg and one near Mahipalpur flyover, a few meters from where the couple was dumped — the spots where police claim PCRs are usually stationed.
According to police, the bus started from old JNU campus, crossed Munirka (from where the two were picked up), Subroto Park and went towards NH-8. It then took a U-turn from under the flyover towards Delhi and reached Mahipalpur. The bus took two rounds on the 7-km stretch.

Transport rules state that chartered buses can operate only between specified destinations and are not permitted to pick up unscheduled passengers, like in this case.

Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Satyendra Garg said: “We are trying to ascertain if the bus was plying on this route on a regular basis and picking up passengers from various points, which is against the law. If it is found to be true, then action will be taken against the officials.”

The bus also had tinted windows, a violation punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act and against which police take action. Garg said they prosecute only private vehicles and have never taken action against a bus for tinted glasses.

Police said a PCR van does not have the authority to stop a moving vehicle on the road, until there is a visible violation. A senior police officer said: “In this case, even if the bus crossed a PCR, the official would not know what is happening inside the bus. We received a call about two persons being dumped naked and the PCR reached the spot in six minutes.”



source- the indian express 

THE WOMEN RESERVATION BILL

The Women's Reservation Bill has been a political raw nerve for nearly a decade now. It has always triggered heated debates in Parliament and outside.

Its advocates say the Bill is essential for active political participation of women.

Opponents argue that reservation would only help women of elitist groups gain political power, aggravating the plight of the poor and deprived sections.

If you are wondering just what the Women's Reservation Bill is and why it is so controversial, read on.

How did the Women's Reservation Bill originate?

The proposed legislation to reserve 33.3 percent seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women was drafted first by the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on September 12, 1996. Though it has been introduced in Parliament several times since then, the Bill could not be passed because of lack of political consensus.

What does the Bill provide?

Reservation for women at each level of legislative decision-making, starting with the Lok Sabha, down to state and local legislatures.

If the Bill is passed, one-third of the total available seats would be reserved for women in national, state, or local governments.

In continuation of the existing provisions already mandating reservations for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, one-third of such SC and ST candidates must be women.

What is the argument in favour of the Bill?

Its proponents say it would lead to gender equality in Parliament, resulting in the empowerment of women as a whole. Historically, the Bill's supporters say, women are deprived in India. Increased political participation of women will help them fight the abuse, discrimination, and inequality they suffer from.

Does reservation for women exist in panchayat elections?

Yes, 33.3 per cent seats in panchayat elections have been reserved for women already. The experience of women's reservation at the panchayat level has been very encouraging. A million women are being elected to the panchayats in the country every five years. This is the largest mobilisation of women in public life in the world.

Then why is there opposition to the Bill?

Various political parties have staunchly opposed it because they fear many of their male leaders would not get a chance to fight elections if 33.3 percent seats are reserved for women. The Bill has also been opposed by politicians from the socially and economically backward classes. They argue that reservation would only help women of the elitist groups to gain seats, therefore causing further discrimination and under-representation to the poor and backward classes.

Who are the main political opponents of the Bill?

From day one, Lalu Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party have been the main political forces opposed to the Bill.

Why?

The SP and RJD are opposed to the bill in its present form and want a quota within quota for women from backward classes.

Lalu says the Bill 'would deny adequate representation to other sections of society.' He favours 10 to 15 percent reservation for women. 'My party is not opposed to women's reservation, but the case of Dalits, backward classes, Muslims and other religious minorities should not be overlooked,' is his argument.

"I want to see women like Kalawati and Bhagwati Devi to be included in the quota. There should be reservation within reservation," said Lalu.

Mulayam favours making it mandatory for political parties to give 10 percent of election tickets to women.

His argument is that if inadequacy of representation is the issue, why not reservation for Muslim women (there are only two in the present Lok Sabha)?

If 33.3 per cent reservation for women is added to the already existing 22.5 percent for scheduled castes and tribes, more than 55 per cent of seats in Parliament would be reserved. This would not be fair to other sections of the population, he says.

Those who oppose the bill are saying that by asking for reservation women are perpetuating unequal status for themselves. But, then supporters argue that provision of reservation for women is only for 15 years. The idea of reservation is to create a level playing field so that women can raise their share in politics and society and then, look for equal status.

Most members opposing say that it is better to create reservation of women in political parties than in Parliament. The provision of rotation of reserved states is also debated. It can reduce the incentive of the elected MPs to spend energy because he or she may not be able to re-seek the mandate from the same constituency.

What is the status of the Bill now?

The Bill had been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and Personnel, which gave its report in December 2009. 

It recommended passage of the Bill in its present form and suggested that the issue should not be left to the discretion of political parties.

The central government cleared the Bill on February 25, 2010. For such a bill to pass, the Constitution has laid out an elaborate procedure. So, even if the Rajya Sabha passes the bill its real impact will be felt only when it passes through the Lok Sabha.

On March 8, it's difficult to say how the government will manage order in the Upper House so that members favouring the bill can vote without disruption or chaos created by opposing members.






Political pundits, sociologists, political scientists, feminists and historians and almost everybody has said that if the bill becomes an act then it will be the biggest socio-political news since independence.