The Winter session of Parliament opened on Thursday after a prolonged holiday for Christmas. Parliament proceedings for much of the session was washed out over a variety of issues, including the latest snooping row, the Rafale jet deal and Cauvery dam.
On Thursday too, the scene in the Rajya Sabha was no different as the House adjourned for the day without transacting any business. There was ruckus in the House over issues ranging from construction of a dam on the Cauvery River to violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Bulandshahr district.
Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha was adjourned twice over protests by the AIADMK on the Mekedatu issue and the Congress, which wanted a JPC probe into the Rafale deal. The triple talaq Bill was passed after the Congress and AIADMK members walked out protesting the government's refusal to send the Bill to a Joint Select Committee for scrutiny.
On the schedule for Thursday:
| Bills for consideration and passing in Lok Sabha: | Bills for consideration and passing in Rajya Sabha: |
| The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill | The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabhilitation) Bill, 2018 |
| The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill | The National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Bill, 2018 |
| The National Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2017 | The Right of Children to Free and Compulsorty Education (Amendment) Bill, 2018 |
| The New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Bill, 2018 | The Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2018 |
| The Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2018 | Bill for withdrawal in Rajya Sabha: The Nalanda University (Amendment) Bill, 2013 |
Here are the live updates:
Premachandran moves another amendment regarding the guardianship of the children. His amendments are rejected. The division: Ayes - 12, Noes - 244.
The problem in the country is not talaq but desertion. That's why I move this amendment, Mr. Owaisi says moving his amedment. The division: Ayes - 12, Noes - 248, hence negative.
The amendments moved by the government are all adopted.
The Bill is passed with 245 members favouring it.
House is adjourned for the day.
N.K. Premachandran moves an amendment to increase the fine to Rs.10,000. He insists on division.
Division for amendment moved by N.K. Premachandran to the triple talaq Bill.
Bhartruhari Mahtab (BJD) moves an amendment. He appreciates the government for accepting certain suggestions such as reconciliation, provisions to apply for bail. He suggests fine can be upto Rs. five lakh but remove the jail term. Some BJP members protest. "You don't want to hear? Your patience will be tested in the Upper House," Mr. Mahtab says.
Division for amendment moved by Bhartruhari Mahtab on removing the imprisonment clause.
The House decides to extend the House proceedings till the voting on the Bill is completed.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 goes for voting. The Lok Sabha Secretary explains the procedure for voting.
With 250 members attending the House, 50 members oppose it.
N.K. Premachandran and Asaduddin Owaisi move amendments. They are negative. Mr. Owaisi insists on division saying "a bhabhi from Gujarat is also interested in living in Delhi."
Division for amendment moved by Asaduddin Owaisi on including other religion as well.
Mr. Owaisi's amendments are rejected.
Amendments insisted by Adhir Ranjan Choudhury is not taken up since he is not present.
Congress Legislative Party leader Mallikarjun Kharge says the Bill is divisive, unconstitutional, against the Muslim personal laws, and discriminatory. No religious law calls a man who divorces a woman as a criminal, he adds. He reiterates his demand for sending the Bill to a Joint Select Committee. AIADMK Floor Leader also endorses his view.
Congress and AIADMK members walk out as the government refuses to send the Bill to Joint Select Committee.
A section of Lok Sabha seats are empty as Congress and AIADMK members walked out of the House.
N.K. Premachandran (RSP) asks why was the Ordinance brought in. Mr. Prasad says the earlier Bill was not passed in Rajya Sabha. After the Ordinance, the instances of triple talaq has come down, he claims.
Mr. Premachandran says the Bill was brought in keeping in mind the minority judgment (Only one of the five judges suggested a law.) He asks if the government will bring an Ordinance based on the dissent judgment in the Sabarimala issue. He recalls the Bill was brought within few days after the judgment, in a hurry.
While he agrees that the triple talaq is bad in law, so is the penal provisions present in the Bill. He moves a statutory resolution against the Ordinance. The motion is rejected through voice vote.
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad responds. He says he is happy that no member in the House has supported instant triple talaq. Quoting an India Policy Report, Mr. Prasad says many women were given divorce on frivolous grounds.
On the non-bailable clause, Mr. Prasad says the offences such as domestic violence and dowry are also non-bailable offences. He claims people who are opposing the Bill are the ones indulging in vote bank politics.
He cities the Supreme Court verdict and asks what is wrong in Quran cannot be right in the Shariat. He says the Bill was introduced to adhere to the apex court's ruling.
Mr. Prasad says over 400 cases of instant talaq was reported this year alone and the police couldn't take any action since there weren't any laws to take action.
He explains the features of the Bill. The Bill allows only the affected woman or her family to file a case. There are provisions for reconsilation. He says the court can grant bail after taking the affected woman's account. The magistrate will decide the compensation.
Twenty two Muslim nations, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have codified triple talaq, Mr. Prasad says. I don't understand why a secular nation like India should not eradicate instant talaq, which even Muslims countries has admonished, he wonders.
Many members questioned the punitive action for instant triple talaq. "Deterrence has great impact in containing a crime or illegal activity. That is why we have the jail term," he explains.
Asadduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) says the Muslim community will reject the Bill. You don't have a problem when the Supreme Court has decriminalised homosexuality, you don't have a problem when adultery is decriminalised, but you want to criminalise triple talaq, he asks.
When a Hindu man can be jailed only for one year, why should a Muslim be imprisoned for three years, he asks. When you oppose Sabarimala judgment on the basis of faith, why do you interfere in my faith, he asks.
In Islam, wedding is a contract. Mention in the nikahnama that a man has to provide three time mehr if he seeks divorce. There are provisions to be considered instant triple talaq as a single talaq.
He questions the intentions of the BJP who has not expunged a former minister who has been named in the #MeToo movement as a sexual harasser.
Mohammed Basheer (IUML) says marriage and divorce comes under the personal laws and the government cannot interfere. He says the Bill is unconstitutional. He questions the intention of the BJP in bringing such a Bill. He claims the ruling party has brought in this Bill as a preview for uniform civil code. You are building a smoke screen that Muslim men are harassing Muslim women, he says.
Jay Prakash Narayan Yadav (RJD) says he opposes the Bill and it must be sent to a Joint Select Committee. He says the Bill has been brought out of "arrogance". The government is not willing to bring a Bill on mob lynching, he claims.
Who will take care of the wife and her children, if her husband is sent to jail, he asks. His speech is truncated as he was speaking beyond his stipulated time.
Badruddin Ajmal (AIUDF) says the Bill is unIslamic. Quoting Meenakshi Lekhi's speech, he says the BJP member knows little about the religion. Mr. Ajmal says Talaq-e-Biddat does not have Islam's approval. Just because a person has gun licence, it doesn't mean he can shoot anyone. The provisions of divorce in Islam is similar to this. He also claims the issue is being blown out of proportion.
He also says the punitive action will only aggravate the harassment of women.
Dharamvir Gandhi (AAP) says he neither supporting nor opposing the Bill outrightly. He says he has three specific issues with the Bill — punitive action, scope for reconciliation, and treat the issue same way as other marriage and divorce laws.
He accuses the BJP of indulging in double standards. Why is the BJP encouraging anti-romeo squads, Sabarimala protests and moral policing when they are interested in the rights of women, he asks.
'Need for separate marriage laws for Sikhs'
Prem Singh Chandumajra (SAD) says he supports the Bill and suggests the debate must be kept outside the purview of religion. He ridicules the stand of some parties who are fine with abolishing triple talaq but don't want to imprison the husband who has "misused" his rights.
Mr. Chandumajra uses the opportunity to pitch for a separate marriage Bill for Sikhs. Currently the marriage and divorce laws for Sikhs are the same as that of Hindus. He claims if people follow the tenets of Sikhism, there wouldn't be any necessity for divorce.
Congress member Ranjeet Ranjan is the next Speaker. Thanks to this Bill, I had a chance to read the Quran. The holy book has, in detail, mentions the "advance rules" for divorce. She claims the community is not aware of the procedure set by their religion. She wonders why the issues faced by Hindu women are not discussed. Won't you bring a law to protect Hindu women, she asks.
She accuses the government of bringing the Bill keeping the vote bank in mind. She says the husband would abandon the wife claiming she sent him to jail. You are alienating such women from her family, community and religion, she says. She requests the Speaker to send the Bill to a Standing Committee.
Dharmendra Yadav, SP, Uttar Pradesh speaks:
Mr. Yadav repeats the points about converting a civil offence to criminal offence, and terms the Bill as dicriminatory. He says he sees no need for such a law.
(Speaker Sumitra Mahajan takes over the Chair)
He brings up the Bulandshahr violence and Muzaffarnagar riots and accuses the govt of turning a blind eye to these issues. The government's claim that they care for Muslim women is false.
He asks the govt to rework the Bill.
Supriya Sule, NCP, Maharashtra speaks:
I am not against the intention of the law, but the way in which it is being pushed across. Nobody on either side of the table is against the cause.
We spoke about this Bill earlier in this Parliament, came up with changes to be made, it was sent to the committee - but what came of it? What is the purpose of bringing up an Ordinance route?
This Bill is for women who are not at the top of pyramid, it is for women who do not know their rights. So is this the best we can do for them? Throwing their husbands in jail? Should we not stress on other similar women empowerment Bills like the ones about women's reservation in Parliament, marital rape etc.
TextilesMinister Smriti Irani speaks:
She continues from the point Mr. Salim left hanging - the Uniform Civil Code. "Happy to hear that word from your mouth," she says.
Over 400 women have been victims of triple talaq even after the SC ruled against it. Four hundred is a huge number - even if one women is affected, every member sitting here should be disturbed.
You are saying marriage is a contract - Ms. Lekshi responded to it accurately. But contracts cannot be cancelled unilaterally. There are consequences for breaching or cancelling a contract.
To those questioning where is the due process of law - please read the point about how a Magistrate will decide the punishment. We are not doing this for vote bank politics - if that was all we were interested in, the cries of those Muslim women would not have reached this house.
Mohammed Salim, CPIM, West Bengal speaks:
The Bill had been put in the House earlier and was sent for discussion, the report is awaited so what is the hurry to bring up the Bill again so quickly? Don't criminalise a civil issue, he insists.
Mr. Salim gets fired up and gets into a verbal spat about the comments made by RSS leaders - the remarks are eventually expunged by the Speaker. You treat Muslim men as second class citizens, and you are talking about justice for Muslim women? Crocodile tears are being shed on behalf of Muslim women.
The fight to abolish triple talaq has been on for over 50 years by progressive Muslim women groups, it did not start 5 years ago like our PM is claiming.
Like Meenakshi Lekhi said, marriage under Muslim law is a contract between two adults of opposite sex - if that contract is breached, it is a civil offence, so why are you proposing that it be made a criminal one?
This is not an innocuous Bill - it is based on a wrong idea. I want gender justice and parity, but the way to bring it about is by making it country-specific and not community-specific.
A. P. Jithender Reddy, TRS, Mahbubnagar says:
Under the pretext of protecting women's right, the government is messing with the integrity of the nation. Modifying religious practices is not the purpose of this House. This Bill is entirely arbitrary.
We should ensure integration of minority community into the majority, not alienate them. This Bill is misconcieved.
Arvind Ganpat Sawant, SS, Mumbai speaks:
He begins with the mention of Savithribai Phule.
He too brings up the point of excluding Jammu and Kashmir. He says that if you are talking about equality, remember that equality is for everyone. The Shiv Sena member pushes Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad for building the Ram Mandir.
Jayadev Galla, TDP, Guntur(AP) speaks:
The government should focus more on saving the lives of men and women who are being lynched in BP-governed States.
He goes into the history of triple talaq. Many countries like Pakistan has banned triple talaq and introduced a Civil Code. He too touches on the points mentioned before, about converting a civil offence to a criminal offence, the lack of clarity about who will provide subsistence allowance, among others. If a man beats his wife, he belongs in jail, but if he divorces her for whatever reason, does he belong in jail?
The Bill excludes Jammu and Kashmir from it's purview, but why? Is J&K not a part of India?
He says that he opposes the Bill in its current form and wants it sent to the joint selection committee.
Deputy Speaker M. Thambi Durai takes over the Chair
Rabindra Kumar Jena, BJP, Odisha starts off with pointing out that he is the 8th speaker to speak on the Bill for women - ironically, more men spoke for women than women for themselves. He reminds the BJP about their promise of providing 33% reservation for women.
He says that implementing the Bill in its current form will be a disaster as many men, fearing criminal prosecution, may simply abandon their wives rather than divorcing them. Also, the courts of the land are so slow that adding more criminal cases to it is not helpful.
Also, how can triple talaq can be compared to other serious crimes that warrant 3 years in jail? My suggestion to the government is to bring in a Uniformed Muslim Code similar to that for Hindus. That will provide a holistic solution for this issue.
Minority Affairs Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi says:
Muslim women went to the PM and one woman said that she was given the third talaaq. She asked the PM when everyone is living in 21st century, why are you making us beg for mercy? - this is my response to the question by Opposition about if we spoke with the stakeholder or not.
I am not a Muslim scholar, but this is not an issue related to Islam or religion, it is about injustice. When efforts were made to stop Sati or child labour, there were people who equated it with overreach into religion - but we overcame all that and justice prevailed. They why do we have a problem with just talaq?
Mallikarjun Kharge interrupts and asks why such provision to criminalise civil issue is not there in Hinduism to which Mr. Naqvi asks "but there is no triple talaq in Hinduism, is there?"
Many countries ruled by Muslim law have scrapped the triple talaq, then why is a secular nation like ours hesitating? I do not understand why many in the Opposition are more worried about the criminals than the victim. This law is not to victimise anyone, our intention is pure.
Bhartruhari Mahtab of BJD Cuttuk interrupts asks him to explain about the due process of law - Mr. Naqvi says the Law Minister will reply to that. He requests them to pass the Bill for the benefit of the nation.
Sudip Bandyopadhyay, AITC, West Bengal speaks:
When we say about protecting the interest of women, we don't talk about the 33% reservation for women in Parliament. For instance, of 34 TMC members in the House, 12 are women - that is how committed we are to elevating women.
We thoroughly oppose the criminalising proposition. Mr. Bandyopadhyay too echoes the worries of the other Opposition legislators about the condition of women whose husbands are sent to jail.
A. Anwhar Raajhaa, AIADMK, TN speaks:
AIADMK will not support the Bill in its current form. The TN CM and deputy CM had asked the Centre to make some amendments to the Bill, but this was ignored and some other minor changes made in the sensitive Bill.
He brings up the discrepancy in the punishment for divorce among different religions as compared to the 3 year imprisonment suggested in this Bill. The Bill fails to answer who will take care of the women, children, aged parents etc if the man is imprisioned. In India, there have been surveys on educational and financial conditions of Muslims in the last 60 years, but no where has triple talaq been isolated as a reason for backwardness.
More than 2 crore Muslim women participated in silent protests against this Bill across the country - it is ironical that such a Bill is being pushed forward with scant input from those who would be affected. This Bill is an eyewash, and undemocratic.
He says that the Bill should be either deferred or be referred to joint committee.
A light moment ensues as Mr. Anwhar compliments Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi's oratorical skills, says that they have been in the same committee for over four years.
Meenakshi Lekhi, BJP, New Delhi speaks:
This government is speaking not just about women empowerment, it is speaking about women-led empowerment. No one from the Opposition is speaking about the fact that we are giving the right to divorce to a man, they are just talking about civil law into criminality.
She says that the Sabarimala issue is different - our country has spoken about uniform civil code, not uniform religious code. If the people shouting 'Sabarimala' had read what Mr. Shashi Tharoor wrote about the issue, they would have understood that.
The people who are arguing against this Bill should remember, no women wants to get divorced - I say this as a women. We think that marriage is for life. We speak about marriage, not of divorce. Ms. Lekhi goes on to quote from the Quran on the dissolution of marriage.
AIADMK members continue protesting in the background as Sushmita Dev, INC, Silchar (Assam) speaks:
She starts off saying that the Law Minister's claim that the points in the previous discussion has been incorporated in the current Bill is incorrect. It is very easy to give a lecture on the empowerment of Muslim women - this is not the first time the Parliament has tried to speak about it too. She goes on to speak about Shayara Bano and Shah Bano Begum cases.
You are speaking about giving equality for women. I want to ask govt: how do you define 'subsistence' in this Bill? It means bare minimum. Is that what our women deserve?
In Muslim law, marriage is a contract. If a contract is broken, it is a civil offence. But under this Bill, that becomes a criminal offence. This is not so in the Hindu Marriage Act, or that of any other religion. This law is not about empowering a Muslim women, it is about penalising a Muslim man. Please tell us, what will this Bill give to Shayara Bano? Today all you are giving her is a criminal proceeding without any subsitence.
N.K. Premchandran from Kerala speaks:
No justification in issuing the ordinance - it is purely passed with political motives and an eye on 2019 elections. This is a very poorly-drafted Bill. It proposes criminalising a civil wrong - why is it valid only for Muslims and not Hindus and Christians? He urges the Speaker to send the Bill to joint select committe.
Many of the clauses in the Bill are contradictory, he says. For instance, how can a husband who is put in jail for three years provide maintenance to the wife? Clause 3,5,6 are inter-contradictory and is unconstitiutional.
A legislation starts on the basis of necessity and promulgation of Ordinance starts on urgency, but here there is no urgency since SC has already struck down the law. So this is unnecessary.
Minister of Law and Justice Ravi Shankar Prasad speaks on the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill.
"This is not about a religion or a bias, but it is about the numerous women who are suffering," he says. "This Bill is for humanity and for our numerous sisters who deserve equal respect and rights."
The Supreme Court said that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional, he says. Meanwhile, Opposition members keep interrupting with comments about Sabarimala.
The Law Minister ploughs on with his speech, citing instances of triple talaq that has been filed in different parts of the country. He says: this same Parliament has come together to make dowry, child abuse and many other issues. Let us come together on this too, and not think of this in terms of religion.
Motion has been moved to discuss the Bill.
Tamil Nadu leaders sloganeer in the well on the Medakettu issue, even as the Speaker requests them to maintain peace.
Speaker is about to introduce the Triple Talaq Bill, but before she can start, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge says that this is very important bill which needs detailed study and requests that it be sent to joint select committee. Other Opposition parties join in this demand.
Lok Sabha adjourned till 2 pm
Triple talaq: Cong issues whip in LS
Meanwhile, the Congress has issued a whip to all its MPs in Lok Sabha, anticipating a debate on the contentious triple talaq bill.
PTI reports that all Lok Sabha members have been asked to be present throughout the day for participation should the debate come up.
The Congress has maintained a cautious approach on the legislation banning instant triple talaq and criminalising the offence.
Party leaders have argued against criminalisation and have also sought amendments to the bill to ensure the financial protection of women through a maintenance package by the state. The Congress has said it is not against the legislation but certain provisions in the bill presented and has sought amendments.
Leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad has been asking who will take care of the woman after her husband faces penal action under the law.
The sloganeering does not abate. "The Chair is telling you to keep quiet. Please do so," says Speaker Sumitra Mahajan.
Those speaking in the House have to make themselves heard over the din.
The House takes up matters under Rule 377, under which members can raise matters that are not points of order or which cannot be raised under the rules relating to Questions, Short Notice Questions, Calling Attention, Motions among others.
BLP MP from Kota Om Birla makes a quick point about the demand and supply of Urea in Rajasthan.
SP MP Dharmendra Yadav, Shiv Sena MP Rahul Shewale, BJP MP Nihal Chauhan, TRS MP Jithendra Reddy, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor all quickly state their matters, even as the noise and sloganeering in the background continues.
Lok Sabha begins.
Sloganeering continues while Speaker Sumitra Mahajan lists out the papers to be laid on the table.
Representatives from Punjab request silence for two minutes while they explain that today is an important day for the Sikh faith, the anniversary of the day when the two sons of Sikh leader Guru Gobind Singh martyed themselves in the battle of December 1704 against the Mughals.
House adjourned till 12 noon
There is ruckus in Lok Sabha during Question Hour over the Rafale jet deal.
Speaker Sumitra Mahajan resorts to collecting the name of sloganeers, amid questions about the sale of Air India land.
Despite repeated warnings from Mahajan, Congress, AIADMK and TDP members continued to stand in the Well of the House and sought to raise various issues, including Rafale deal.
Soon after the Question Hour began, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge wanted to raise the issue of Rafale deal but Mahajan said the matter can be raised during the Zero Hour.
House adjourned till 12 noon, even as slogans demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee continue.
Rajya Sabha adjourned for the day
Rajya Sabha was adjourned for the day without transacting any business after ruckus in the House over issues ranging from construction of a dam on the Cauvery River to violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Bulandshahr district.
While slogan shouting members of AIADMK and DMK trooped into the well of the House over construction of Mekadatu Dam on Cauvery River, Samajwadi Party and BSP members raised the issue of mob violence in Bulandshahr that left two dead, including an inspector rank police officer.
A couple of members from Andhra Pradesh too were in the well of the House demanding special status for the state.
Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu said nothing that the protesting members were saying would go on record and then adjourned the proceedings for the day.
- PTI
