Law to punish husbands after instant talaq will be a New Year gift for Muslim women: Modi

coastaldigest.com news network

January 29, 2018

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday made a "humble request" to all political parties to help pass the bill on instant triple talaq in the Budget session of Parliament, saying it would be a New Year gift for Muslim women.

Speaking to reporters outside Parliament House, Modi, who is also the husband of helpless Jashodaben, said that despite his government's efforts and people's expectations the triple talaq bill could not be passed in the last session.

He said though there should be no politics on the issue as it relates to the rights of Muslim women, the Bill could not be passed.

While the so called Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, sailed through the Lok Sabha, it is pending in the Rajya Sabhja as several opposition parties demanded that it be referred to a select committee. The Budget session of Parliament got underway today.

While the government maintains that the bill is meant to ensure “gender justice and gender equality” for married Muslim women, the Muslim leaders across country including women claim that it violates minority rights. Social activists, too, have objected to the bill, questioning the need to criminalise a practice declared "void" by the Supreme Court. AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi has opined that triple talaq bill was a ploy to send Muslim men to jail.

Here’s a look at what The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Bill, 2017 provides for:

— Under proposed bill, a Muslim man who resorts to Talaq-e-Biddat or instant talaq would be jailed for three years.

— The custody of any minor children from the marriage would be granted to the woman and legally husband loses rights on his kids (even if the woman was a murderer or child abuser)

— It makes instant divorce a non-bailable offence which can lead to an imprisonment of up to three years upon conviction.

— It also makes it mandatory for the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and child support towards any children (even if the woman was a billionaire and the man was a beggar).

Comments

Pakoda Business is also a gift from Fenku

Thanks for the bill. If our PM is a true indian, he should go to jail first respecting the Bill coz he has deserted his wife for no reason. Secondly, why only appeasing muslim women. How about Hindu sisters. There are lakhs of Hindu women who are deserted by their husbands. govt should also support muslim women by allowing them to marry more than one time like the men and Hindu women should be allowed to have 6 husbands like their Mother Draupadi from Mahabharatha. When is our PM going to jail respecting the law he is going to introduce in Rajya Sabha. Let us celebrate it.

Why not the same punishment to the PM himself?

When our bhabhi Jashodaben will get such a wonderful gift?

Dear Mr. PM,

We support your decision but first you are the one who should get punish for leaving your wife and not taking care of her.

Democracy died under your leadership.

Minority appeasement.. Shame on PM

Why only gift for muslim women.. Why not hindu women too?

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.

‘Officials to pay from salary’: Supreme Court issues guidelines on ‘bulldozer justice’

News Network

November 13,2024

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments