Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 SC now the moral police. Then why lecture in favor of AIB. Is it not against societal moral? SC did not do ANY moral policing here - read my post on the judgment. So' date=' if a Muslim who isnt state servant can have multiple wives?[/quote'] Yes. Also, a Muslim who is a state servant TOO can have multiple wives provided he takes prior permission. This has been the same since 1955 via the "MHA OM No. 219/51-Ests. Dated 16.02.1955" order.
coffee_rules Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Certain sections will start protest all over country. Plus I thought BJP didn't have the votes esp in the upper house.
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Certain sections will start protest all over country. So? There are many things these "certain sections" protest - the central government still does them.
Sachin=GOD Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Why? AFAIK it needs a 2/3rd majority which NDA doesn't have. More importantly they have to do a lot of homework in terms of getting all communities on board - that itself would take at least 4-5 years of patient negotiations. If the Govt tries to do this in haste it would backfire.
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 AFAIK it needs a 2/3rd majority which NDA doesn't have. More importantly they have to do a lot of homework in terms of getting all communities on board - that itself would take at least 4-5 years of patient negotiations. If the Govt tries to do this in haste it would backfire. Lets discuss more. First, what changes would it require and where?
seedhi Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 AFAIK it needs a 2/3rd majority which NDA doesn't have. More importantly they have to do a lot of homework in terms of getting all communities on board - that itself would take at least 4-5 years of patient negotiations. If the Govt tries to do this in haste it would backfire.Why will it require 2/3 majority? Personal laws can be changed with simple majority, it is not amending the constitution. Of course, BJP does not have simple majority and apart from BJP and Shiv Sena no one supports it.
Sachin=GOD Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Why will it require 2/3 majority? Personal laws can be changed with simple majority, it is not amending the constitution. Of course, BJP does not have simple majority and apart from BJP and Shiv Sena no one supports it. Some time back I read in Hindustan Times (or maybe it was ToI) that it requires simple majority in Lok Sabha but a 2/3rd in Rajya Sabha - I also did not understand why this would be so.
Sachin=GOD Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Lets discuss more. First' date=' what changes would it require and where?[/quote'] Honestly speaking I have not read in detail about UCC till now - I only have a very general idea which wouldn't suffice for an informed discussion. But I will read it up and discuss with you in this thread soon - its a really important topic :nice:
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Some time back I read in Hindustan Times (or maybe it was ToI) that it requires simple majority in Lok Sabha but a 2/3rd in Rajya Sabha - I also did not understand why this would be so. Myth. Also, the last I checked BJP has a simple majority - 282/543 > 50% Honestly speaking I have not read in detail about UCC till now - I only have a very general idea which wouldn't suffice for an informed discussion. But I will read it up and discuss with you in this thread soon - its a really important topic :nice: Thanks! Some pointers + Article 44 - Directive Principles of State Policy Part IV of the Indian Constitution. + Goa already has UCC wrt Family laws which they inherited from the evil Portuguese + UCC is NOT just an issue with Muslims. Hindus, along with Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, enjoy certain privileges that other religions do not. For example, Income Tax Act 1961. PM me, I will send you a link if you are interested on this part.
Texan Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 There is nothing as such. Lets first understand some background regarding the case. + The case is between Khursheed Aman Khan and State of UP where the former is the plaintiff (appellant). + The appellant was employed by the State of UP as an "Irrigation Supervisor" in the Irrigation Department at IVth Sub Division, Hasanpur. + The appellant was sacked from service for misconduct under Rule 29(1) of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The rules states that if you need to marry twice, you need to take permission from the govt + The High Court upheld the UP government decision when challenged by the appellant + The appellant filed a case against the HC decision plus also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 29(1) citing Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of Indian Constitution + The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 29(1) of the UP Govt Servant Conduct rules. It said that "A law in favor of monogamy does NOT mean it violates Article 25" cited by many judgments in the past (Point 46- 60). The appellant's petition was dismissed. Full Text of the SC judgment So what is the conclusion? Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy. However, jus because they can does not mean the requirement of prior permission from the State violates Article 25. This is so, because in current societal context (not just in India but the entire world) polygamy is not acceptable and "injurious" to morals. Remember my conversation when I said you do not read legal statements from MSM? That time, you hinted at a kaanspiracy because of my political allegiance. Here, there's no such thing. Hopefully, now you see my point. Btw, look at report of the same judgment by another news paper which is more accurate than the OP but still does not give the complete picture. Right to religion not above public morality: SC http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-to-religion-not-above-public-morality-sc/article6876039.ece I did understand the context in which this decision was made. The part I found confusing mentioned in the article in OP and that is also referenced in the court statement whose hyperlink was provided by you is this: What was protected under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate any religion) was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25 In addition, in the same judgement, the following text has been quoted: 60.. ..........It may be permissible for Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy or polygamy or to have children more than one. What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire the sanction of religion simply because it is permitted. Assuming the practice of having more wives than one or procreating more children than one is a practice followed by any community or group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does.†These statements suggest to me that the Supreme Court has deemed polygamy to be actions that can be "prohibited by legislation", or simply put, illegal. That view does seem to contradict Muslim Personal Law. So, for example, if the first wife files a criminal case against the husband for indulging in polygamy, wouldn't these statements prove the offense? On the other thread that you mentioned, I had compelling reasons to believe that political allegiance was a factor in your actions. But, that discussion is over and dead and I have no interest in reviving it.
bulbul Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 So? There are many things these "certain sections" protest - the central government still does them. Example? More than sections biggest worry is secular media they may spin this news in such a way that it will be difficult to know what is truth or lies.
Crookbond Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I did understand the context in which this decision was made. The part I found confusing mentioned in the article in OP and that is also referenced in the court statement whose hyperlink was provided by you is this: In addition, in the same judgement, the following text has been quoted: These statements suggest to me that the Supreme Court has deemed polygamy to be actions that can be "prohibited by legislation", or simply put, illegal. That view does seem to contradict Muslim Personal Law. So, for example, if the first wife files a criminal case against the husband for indulging in polygamy, wouldn't these statements prove the offense? . You can't pick up statements from judgment and view it outside the microcosm. Here, the appellant filed an appeal against the UP government conduct rules, said that it violated Article 25 and the basis of his argument was religion. In this context, the SC said that it does not violate because it is not immoral against public health, law order and immorality. What it means is what I replied to RKT in original post plus original post. You are confused because you are leading to the A=>B , B=>A fallacy. The SC said that IFF there were a legislation to be bought that prohibits polygamy this would not violate Article 25. The entire revolving theme around the judgment is Article 25. It does not mean that if wife files a case against polygamy it will be upheld, because there is no legislation as such. The job of the SC is to interpret laws. On the other thread that you mentioned, I had compelling reasons to believe that political allegiance was a factor in your actions. But, that discussion is over and dead and I have no interest in reviving it. May be it is time to revisit your reasons. Your compelling reasons could always be wrong and it is gracious to accept when they are. I had made the point before that discussion, after that discussion (this thread) and will continue to make. Legal reporting in India is virtually non-existent and very poor.
Recommended Posts