New UAE law: Consensual relationships out of wedlock decriminalized; restrictions on extra-marital affairs eased

News Network
January 2, 2022

uaeharam.jpg

The government of United Arab Emirates has ratified a new and updated Federal Crime and Punishment Law, a move intended to further modernize the legislative system of the country. 

The new legislation eases restrictions on extra-marital relationships and it will be fully enacted starting from January 2, 2022.

His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE, approved a wide-ranging reform of the country’s legal system, which reportedly aims to strengthen economic, investment and commercial opportunities.

The new law includes the amendment and revision of a number of areas of legislation, including new criminal penalties for public disorder offences and the de-criminalization of a number of behaviours.

>> The law also punishes with imprisonment for a period of no less than six months, consensual extra-marital intercourse with a person aged over 18 years, noting that a criminal case for this crime is only instituted on the basis of a complaint from the husband or guardian. In all cases, the husband or guardian has the right to waive the complaint, and the waiver entails the expiration of the criminal case or the suspension of the execution of the penalty, as the case may be.

>> The new law effectively decriminalizes consensual relationships out of wedlock, providing that any child conceived as a result of the relationship is acknowledged and will be cared for.

>> Any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock will be required to marry or singly or jointly acknowledge the child and provide identification papers and travel documents in accordance with the laws of the country of which either is a national, considering the applicable laws of that nation. Failing this, a criminal case would introduce a prison term of two years for both correspondents.

>> The new law also prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a public place or in unlicensed locations.

>> The law also prohibits the sale, provision or incitement or inducement to consume alcoholic beverages to any person below 21 years of age.

>> The new law stipulates life imprisonment for the crime of rape or non-consensual intercourse and if the victim is under the age of 18, disabled or otherwise rendered in a condition unable to offer resistance can be extended to capital punishment.

>> The new law also addresses the crime of indecent assault with imprisonment or a fine of no less than Dh 10,000 regardless of the victim’s gender. If the use of force or threat is employed in the course of the crime, the penalty shall be imprisonment for a period of no less than five years and not exceeding 20 twenty years.

>> The penalty will rise to a prison term of no less than ten years and not exceeding 25 years if the victim is aged under 18, disabled or otherwise rendered in a condition unable to offer resistance. Also, the more severe penalty applies if the crime takes place in a place of work, study, shelter or care.

>> One of the most important provisions newly introduced by the Crime and Punishment Law is that the law is applied to anyone who commits, or participates in, a premeditated murder that occurs against a citizen of the UAE even if the crime takes place outside 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
    November 14,2024

    srirang.jpg

    Bengaluru: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi led union government has requested the Karnataka High Court to direct the Mandya district administration and the state government to clear a madrasa operating within the premises of the historic Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna.

    The Waqf Board, opposing this move, has claimed the mosque as its property and defended the right to conduct madrasa activities there.

    The matter was brought before a division bench headed by Chief Justice N V Anjaria following a public interest litigation filed by a person named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk. The petition alleged “unauthorised madrasa activities” within the mosque.

    Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India for High Court of Karnataka, K Arvind Kamath argued that the Jama Masjid was designated as a protected monument in 1951, yet unauthorised madrasa operations continue there.

    He noted that concerns over potential law and order issues have so far prevented any intervention. Kamath urged the court to direct the Mandya district administration to take action and vacate the madrasa from the mosque.

    In defence, lawyers for the state government and the Waqf Board contested this request, stating that the Waqf Board had been recognised as the owner of the property since 1963 and, thus, conducting madrasa activities there is lawful.

    After hearing both sides, the bench adjourned the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20.

    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
    November 13,2024

    buldozerjustice.jpg

    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

    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
    November 17,2024

    hizbullah.jpg

    An Israeli airstrike on the office of Syria’s Baath party in Lebanon’s capital Beirut has killed the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah's Media Relations Officer, Mohammad Afif, reports say.

    Lebanon's National News Agency (NNA) reported that the Israeli raid struck the Ba'ath party’s building in central Beirut district of Ras Al-Naba'a on Sunday, adding that the strike was an attempt to assassinate the leader of the resistance media front.

    According to Baath Secretary-General Ali Hijazi, Afif was having a meeting in the Baath Party headquarters when Israel carried out the attack.

    "Afif did not fight with weapons and did not lead a military unit in Hezbollah. Rather, he led a media unit," he said.

    Reuters, Sky News, Al Jazeera and a number of Henrew-language media reported that Afif was killed in the Israeli strike.

    However, Hezbollah has not yet confirmed Afif’s death or whether he was present at the site or not.

    Earlier, the Lebanese Health Ministry said at least one person was killed and three others injured after an Israeli strike targeted a central district in Beirut.

    Lebanon's al-Mayadeen television network reported that five people were killed in the attack.

    The latest development came after Afif said Hezbollah was behind the Caesarea operation and targeting Netanyahu’s home during a speech at the Ghobeiry area in the southern suburbs of Beirut on October 22.

    This was the second assassination attempt on Afif in the last two months, after he survived an attack on the Hezbollah media relations office several weeks ago.

    Israel launched a ground assault and massive air campaign against Lebanon in late September after a year of exchanging fire across the Lebanese border in parallel with the Gaza war.

    At least 3,287 people have been killed in Israeli strikes in Lebanon over the past year, with the vast majority in the past seven weeks. Another 14,222 have been wounded, mostly women and children.

    In response to the ongoing aggression, the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has been staging hundreds of retaliatory strikes against the occupied Palestinian territories and the Israeli forces trying to advance on southern Lebanese areas.

    The movement has vowed to sustain its strikes until the regime ends the escalation.

    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.