Legislation gone sour

In 1978 when an old Muslim woman was divorced in Madhya Pradesh’s bustling commercial and historic town of Indore, nobody had an inkling that history was in the process of being made.

Mother-of-five aged 62, Shah Bano was denied alimony by her husband. When after various lower court judgments her case reached the Supreme Court, the apex court ruled in favour of Shah Bano, who had nothing to support herself and her children. Invoking Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to all citizens regardless of caste, creed, or religion, the court ruled that the single women be given maintenance money, similar to alimony.

The judgment triggered wide scale protests with many Muslim politicians questioning the court’s right to interfere into the affairs of the Muslim Personal Board Law.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) took it upon itself to spearhead the movement against the court order. However, some young radicals in the Congress like Arif Mohammed Khan opposed the conservatives strenuously.

But the Congress with a brute majority in the Lok Sabha — and in what was seen an open act of so-called minority appeasement — the Rajiv Gandhi government went ahead to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 that nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case.

Apart from raising a storm on the subject of a Uniform Civil Code, questions were also raised about the government and ruling Congress’ secular credentials.

Many years down the line, the act marks a land mark in vote bank politics and revealed the levels to which a government could go, even if it meant overturning the Supreme Court on its head.

Herculean codification

The Hindu Code Bill has attracted much attention since the turn of the century. But India’s British masters traditionally played it safe by adopting a studied policy of non-interference into Hindu customs.

However, things changed post-Independence when the Congress led by western educated Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took on the onerous responsibility of bringing requisite changes for the codification and reform of Hindu Personal law. The move evoked mixed reactions with proponents backing it on grounds that it would help unify the Hindu community — and hence unify the country. Some others protested saying it was tantamount to interference with sentiments of the majority community sentiment.

Occupying centre stage was India’s first law minister Bhim Rao Ambedkar — also father of the Constitution — who not just compiled the first draft of the bill but also quit parliament when some `progressive’ points were not included in the draft under severe opposition pressure from well organised Hindu groups. The issue hung in balance, mired in controversies, until the Jawaharlal Nehru government got into the act. Without much ado, the bill was sent to the law ministry for its vetting and by August, 1948, a revised edition with eight sections was sent out for consideration.

The Parliament passed four Hindu Code Bills, separately: the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

Politics of Aya Ram, Gaya Ram

To defect from one political party to the other was once the easiest options offered by Indian democracy. Common to all parties, a disagreement, ego clash or even pelf could spark a split in the party with the leader of a group taking along with him a few like-minded opportunists to set up shop in an already overcrowded political market. In the defection syndrome, it was the party which suffered the most.

To end this malpractice — as well as to safeguard his own massive flock in the Lok Sabha — the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced the Tenth Schedule, the 52nd amendment, popularly known as the Anti-Defection Act.

Included in the Constitution in 1985, it sets the provisions for disqualification of elected members on grounds of defection to another political party. As per the proposals, the size of the council of ministers were not to be more than 10 per cent of respective strengths of parliament and state legislatures. Despite many histrionics in and out of Parliament, the fact was that both the ruling party and opposition worked jointly on the provisions of the bill.

After long confabulations, it was decided to accept suggestions made by the Dinesh Goswami Committee, Law Commission of India and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). The grounds for disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law’ are applicable if an elected member voluntarily gives up membership of a political party; if he votes or abstains from voting in the Parliament contrary to any direction issued by his political party or anyone authorised to do so, without obtaining prior permission; As a pre-condition for his disqualification, his abstention from voting should not be condoned by his party or the authorised person within 15 days of such incident.

The new changes were a far cry from the earlier days when a ‘defection’ by one-third of the elected members of a political party was considered a ‘merger’. Also, under law such defections were not regarded actionable. Since then a lot of things have changed in the Indian political map.

Giani’s last stand

The controversial Postal Bill hit headlines during the turbulent times of former President Giani Zail Singh’s tenure back in the 1980s.

In a move that has had a long-term impact on the postal industry, Zail Singh played a crucial and some would say a controversial role, in the bill finally becoming an act. He withheld his consent to a bill to amend the Indian Postal Act of 1898.

According to insiders, the President was unhappy with the sweeping changes it sought to introduce. Raising a storm, he felt that the Congress government of that time wanted arbitrary powers to intercept postal communications indiscriminately and that constituted an act that would impinge on personal freedom of individuals.

The President’s action sparked a debate in the country with tension between him and the government reaching new heights for a President-Prime Minister tussle and marked the worse phase of their relationship in the late 1980s.

The President finally acceded to the government’s demand, but only after a lot of bad blood and acrimony.Subsequent postal bills have also faced stiff opposition. For instance, the draft Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 2006, made news when the government acceded to the demands of major players in the sector.

For a considerable length of time, the Indian Post Office Amendment Bill too has generated heat. Many in the industry, like the Express Industry Council of India (EICI), have expressed their displeasure over the draft, calling it “detrimental to India’s global competitiveness.” When the bill was introduced, a few lobbyists were dead against it. But at the end of the day it was the then government that had the last laugh.