[***It's really remarkable that as the (only) justification for the haste, the Finance Minister and Leader of the House had to put forward a patently false argument***:
<<"The reason why it should not be referred (to select committee) is that when the practice was declared unconstitutional, 2 of the judges held it as unfair and used their extraordinary power to suspend it for 6 months, which expire on February 22. Judges said, 'We are now suspending it for 6 months and we beseech all parties, therefore within this period come out with apt legislation.' So, there is an urgency that country expects from Parliament. Legislature must act with sense of responsibility," Jaitley stressed.>> Mercifully, it'd be immediately called out by a senior Congress leader, Kapil Sibal: <<Congress leader and senior advocate Kapil Sibal debunked Jaitley's claim, pointing out that the BJP leader was quoting from the minority judgment penned by former CJI J S Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer. Triple talaq was declared unconstitutional by 3:2 majority. "He (Arun Jaitley) referred to judgement of SC, I want to correct the record because I appeared in the case on behalf of Muslim Personal Law Board. What he said was in context of the minority judgement," Sibal told deputy chairman PJ Kurien, who was presiding over the proceedings.>> (Source: < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/government-opposition-spar-in-rajya-sabha-over-triple-talaq-bill/articleshow/62352101.cms >.) (It's no less remarkable that the Hindu report, reproduced below, simply repeats the lie. Not even the faintest hint of any refutation.) That only underlines the fact that there is just no bonafide justification for not referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Be that as it may, the Bill makes instant triple talaq a cognizable offence and punishable by three years'prison term. Which means anybody, just anybody - not only the wife, can file a complain or the police on the basis of that complaint, or just on its own, can arrest the concerned person. The issue of bail etc. will keep getting decided while the person will remain in custody. Even the wife's denial would be of no help to stop arrest in the first place. What does it mean!? In simple terms, it means if and once enacted, every married Muslim man, maybe even the unmarried ones as well, would face the constant threat of being picked up and taken into custody by the police on the charge of uttering, or communicating via other means, instant triple talaq, with all the spine-chilling attendant implications. It's an unimaginable dystopia. <<Should the triple talaq Bill be sent to a Select Committee or not? This question triggered a heated exchange of words in the Rajya Sabha, forcing an adjournment of the House for the day. ... Trinamool Congress member Sukendu Sekhar Roy moved a motion for an amendment under Rule 125 and sought that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. "We think the Bill is faulty. It requires suggestions from different stakeholders," he said. Congress member Anand Sharma too moved a motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee. His motion was supported by members of various Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress, the AIADMK, the DMK, the CPI, the CPI(M), the RJD and the BSP.>> So, it looks that the BJP is readying to push this draconian Bill into cold storage for the time being to be taken out only with better numbers. Anyway, let's wait for what happenes tomorrow, the last day of the current session.] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rajya-sabha-remains-undecided-on-fate-of-triple-talaq-bill/article22359350.ece Rajya Sabha remains undecided on fate of triple talaq Bill The Hindu Net Desk JANUARY 03, 2018 17:30 IST UPDATED: JANUARY 03, 2018 18:42 IST A view of the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, during the discussion on the triple talaq Bill. Heated exchange of words culminates in adjournment of the House for the day. Should the triple talaq Bill be sent to a Select Committee or not? This question triggered a heated exchange of words in the Rajya Sabha, forcing an adjournment of the House for the day. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, popularly known as the triple talaq Bill, was moved in the House on Wednesday soon after it reconvened at 3 p.m. Moving the Bill, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said triple talaq was being used despite the Supreme Court banning it. Trinamool Congress member Sukendu Sekhar Roy moved a motion for an amendment under Rule 125 and sought that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. "We think the Bill is faulty. It requires suggestions from different stakeholders," he said. Congress member Anand Sharma too moved a motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee. His motion was supported by members of various Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress, the AIADMK, the DMK, the CPI, the CPI(M), the RJD and the BSP. Even before the Bill was taken into consideration, a heated verbal exchange was witnessed in the House with members raising a series of Point of Orders. When Mr. Prasad again rose to speak, the Opposition members objected to the Minister and Leader of the House Arun Jaitley speaking after a Bill is moved, claiming it was unprecedented. However, Deputy Chairman P.J. Kurien clarified the the Minister concerned and the Leader of the House have the right to express their views. Appealing to the Congress to support the Bill, Mr. Prasad said "Triple talaq is continuing despite the Supreme Court banning it... This Bill is necessary." 'Support in other House and opposition in this House' Mr. Jaitley argued that the motions moved by Mr. Sharma and Mr. Roy cannot be taken up as it was in conflict with the rulebook. Mr. Jaitley's speech was interrupted several times. "The whole country is watching that in the other House you supported the Bill and in this House, you are opposing it," he said pointing at the Congress members. The Treasury Bench put forth the argument that the Supreme Court's ban on instant triple talaq was valid only for six months, which ends on February 22, and this Bill was necessary to protect the interests of married Muslim women. The Opposition members were firm in their stand that they are ready to support the cause but the Bill is faulty and needs a second look. At one stage, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad suggested the House could vote on the issue. "If the majority's view is not heard in this House, where will it be heard?" Mr. Azad quipped. Amid din, the Chair decided both motions are valid but the members on both the sides continued their protests. The House was adjourned for the day. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
