Private Member’s Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
This Blog is written by Jissy Rajish from The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. Edited by Ujjawal Vaibhav Agrahari.
________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
A civilised society is always revolving around rationality. Thus, an indubitable law from its choice of the representatives with its utmost clarity so that nothing in the clause should have a benefit of doubt is a sine qua non for a matrix. India is fortunate enough to have the Parliamentary bicameral chambers in its law-making process and the executive and judiciary in law enforcing and applying respectively framing the structure of our democracy. But for some lacuna behind, the Government proposals will not be enough in its attempt to deal with a specific issue. Thus, the Private Member’s Bill is one of the significant matter that is downright concerned with the Parliamentary affairs of our country which hands over some power to the Members of Parliament other than those who are holding the portfolio as a Minister. Thereby this secures the position in the construction of law governing the land. This Bill finally forms a political achievement to a legislative disaster to be converted into a brilliant tactical success. This system of practice emerged out for unearthing the loopholes in which members of the chambers haven’t visualised yet. But it still reveals that finding the problem alone cannot give effect to its resolution. For the same purpose, it needs to be specifically addressed, studied and solutions be proposed. How much justified are these rationales? Whatever may be the rationale behind this system, it always remonstrates that any law which come up as loopholes set within it would lead to a political disaster if not rectified.
Whatsoever, it only focuses on modifying the effect of a rule which is accommodated with some vacuum within. Rather this practice should be promoted for wiping off the deliberate, intentional and unlawful murder of a law in our land. Common law system of governance clearly formulated the Private Member Bill system with sufficient flexibility in order to achieve substantive justice. Thus, it creates a platform for changing an inappropriate rule into an ad rem without deceiving the confidence of the people over their representatives, chosen for themselves. The present situation emancipates the need for improvement in the consideration of Private Member Bills. Only 4% of the total proposals have been even considered for a term in the House is just a catastrophe to the modern diplomacy. Modern problems require innovative solutions. The technicality of this takeaway is whirling around as an instrument for application of the truth of the matter with a remedy for the defects on drafting or for any other reason of a particular topic to be disregarded.
Meanwhile the contemporary India is witnessing a series of technical infections and procedural imperfections in proposing a Bill by a Private Member of the Parliament. In spite of the ultimate benefit for which this procedure was introduced, it is rather the political play of those individuals in a party ticket for injecting their own ideologies into the mind-set of the public. Rather than promotion of law reforms, the procedure promulgates in pressurising public discussions in a minimalistic way and unveils the political controversies of the reality in Parliamentary life. Thereby it ameliorates into a shoddy Parliamentary machinery.
2014: THE POWERPLAY
The first Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh with a BJP ticket, Yogi Adityanath, being a Member of Parliament without given the portfolio of a Minister, has put forth various recurring choices of debates in Parliamentary session. 2014 witnessed. The survey from the Government website shows the area of his interest which got war of words during the 16th Lok Sabha was Hindu issues outweighing other areas of research like water pollution, river conservation etc. of this the most wrangling issues in 2014 were enforcing Uniform Civil Code and replacing the terminology ‘India’ with that of Hindustan by proposing Constitutional amendments. Apart from these, his religious underpinnings were also reflected in the Ban on Cow Slaughter Bill, 2014. This “level headed and inspiring figure” in 2016 once again overwhelmingly debated on the topic of introduction of UCC by proposing an amendment to our Constitution by his statement that “Rapid reduction in the number of Sikhs and Buddhists and the rapid increase in the Muslim population attract attention to the dangerous situation of demographic imbalance. The need for an effective equal civil law and population control is being felt within the country.” The census report officially published in the following years after his proposal revealed the Muslim population was very minimal compared to other religious categories. This was the major controversy with regard to the intention of Yogi in the wake of UCC.
This great person who is graduate in Science made dual proposals on the Constitution Amendment Bill in the year of 2014 itself. Article 1 and 44 of the Indian Constitution was kept in scrutiny for that year from his proposals. The latter one which focused on the establishment of UCC had far profound effects on personal laws that is a menace to India for years. Meanwhile the Ban on Cow Slaughter Bill, 2014 was reintroduced by Yogi and is a replica of the same proposal he made in 2009 during the 15th Lok Sabha. Both versions of the ban of slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks and oxen based on scientific lines was not at all justified.
The year, 2014 was marked by his seek of permission to introduce first Bill, the country to be called as Hindustan in the Constitution; second Bill, UCC; and final Bill, ban on cow slaughter.
The amendment for the name of India into Hindustan was the roleplay between some religious ideology-based parties and the MP from Gorakhpur. He aims for the replacement of the term ‘India’ which always materialized the symbol of slavery of our fellow citizens under the British Raj. This Bill was by leaps and bounds after his raking up of controversies regarding his advocacy for gainsay on ‘love jihad’. In 2009 the issue was not even considered by the Head to be ventilated in the Parliament.
However, this issue is not new-fangled to the Parliamentary sessions. This was a burning issue for the members of the Constituent Assembly in their debates for the nomenclature of the newly formed independent country from the hand of Britain in 1946 wherein Shri. M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Seth Govind Das batting for Bharat. The opinion then ranged from Bharat, Hindustan, Hind, Bharatbhumi, Bharatvarsh and Aryavrat. But now it melted only with Hindustan. Historians broached that Hindustan emerged from the land near ‘Sindhu’ often termed as ‘Hindu’. For the time being, some party followers work on religious ideals and raised that geographical entity of present India only supports the existence of Hindus and Hindutva as the way of life.
The raison d’etre for this initiative is the lack of rumination given to the term ‘Hindustan’ mayhap the importance given to ‘Bharat’. He solely believed that English name India has purely wiped out the traditional crux of the land, its culture, under the umbrella of Hindustan. India spotted heated arguments since its independence in nomenclature of our country which is suitable to the multicultural and vivacious sentiments.
Following this proposal, one petition was filed by seeking the amendment of Art. 1 of the Constitution. The petitioner raised that it is the “loss of identity and ethos as inheritors of the hard-won freedom from foreign rule” and replacing the term with Hindustan will instil a sense of pride in our nationality, especially for future generations.” The PIL added on that whether Art. 1 was inserted just for reference to repeal the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Indian Independence Act and seek to repeal by Art. 395. Another contention was that whether the term ‘India’ was referred for de jure recognition in the world of diplomacy often used by other countries. Hindi excerpts of our Constitution were produced before for the establishment of the name of the country.
THE UNTACKLED PROBLEM OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
The party agenda of an UCC has for decades beset the feminist approach towards gender justice. As the second part of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution ranging from Art. 25 to 30 deal with protection of religious freedom and minority affairs identifies the collective unit of the Indian democracy. It derives the spirit from the personal laws on inheritance, marriage, guardianship governing various communities within the country. It is under the Directive Principles of State Policy provided in Part IV of the Indian Constitution urges the Government to construct the UCC. Again, the hurdle with its imposition is to take a trip down memory lane in saving minority rights and gender equality keeping in mind the majoritarian Hindu system.
Even it is wrong to assume that any minority communities that are criticising UCC are considered as anti-women and aggressively threatening the national integrity. Neither Hindu personal laws are reformed. It is merely codified to various statutes for the protection of their personal law system rejecting the Hindu Code Bill drafted by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in 1951. Another issue with this national integrity question is that the inconsiderateness of marginalised interests and identities and unreformed personal laws representing the cultural identity.
From the feminist perspective, 1937-1980s the demand for UCC was augmented by movements of women rights and women organisations. But in 1990s reconsidering the urge for reforms in personal laws with gender just laws made the same women movements to withdraw their support for the motion of an UCC. This culminated in the enactment of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and amendments to various existing personal laws.
Such emergence of movements for the inculcation of gender just laws, protecting the minority interest and the homogeneous and heterogeneous identities has dropped the idea of national integrity from the enactment of UCC. Aftermath of the Court ruling of recriminalisation of sex with minors, non-consensual sex and homosexual relationships in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation case (2013), thus it became uncertain after this ruling of the judicial authority on the question of non-heteronormative relationship. It is absolutely troublesome to criticise those initiatives as anti-secular or pseudo secular is neither acceptable nor credible of the vigour of some right-wing Hindu religion based political parties. This can be never ever considered as a panacea for inequality and poses a threat for the integrity to consider of UCC without even reforming the personal laws existing now.
Art. 44 only promulgates the advocates and critiques of UCC in a modus vivendi for the appetite by the ruling party to endeavour such a code. Thus, in the name of national integrity reality existed on protecting majorly Hindu rights. The constitutionality of personal laws with respect to right to equality was challenged before the Supreme Court in The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952). In National Textile Workers v. PR. Ramkrishnan (1982) Supreme Court requested to appeal the State agencies for doing its best on community interests. John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union Of India, (2003) followed the questioning of revisiting the constitutionality it is really a matter of concern to call the UCC opposes as anti-nationalists rather they can be termed as protecting the status quo for not preaching the attempt for an UCC without reforming the personal laws.
There has been attempts by the Supreme Court itself to direct the Parliament to frame UCC in Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) followed in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India. Why it is even after many statements were made by some honourable Judges from the supreme judicial authority the proposal for UCC is merely an attempt rather than an effort? Why the Court isn’t providing guidelines and instructions for the State machineries for its enactment? Why the Court is really set its heart on this matter to come up with a solution?
Yogi Adityanath in his resolution for UCC has shed light on omission of existing Art. 44 and insertion of Part IV A and IV B of the Indian Constitution. His statement of object for this spirit is the dream of the Constitution makers for making laws applicable to Indian citizens uniformly. Since it is the Government affairs, it is not even enforceable in a Court of law either.
BAN ON COW SLAUGHTER BILL: A PANACEA?
In the provided Bill, the term, “cow” includes a bull, bullock, ox, heifer or calf. The holy grail of this attempt is to prevent the slaughter of cow and sale of beef. This act is condemned by punishing the so-called offender up to 10 years imprisonment or fine extend to Rs. 1 lakh or with both. This dynamism by the MP in 2014 was his rhetoric effort for preserving cow and its progeny in consideration for its improvement in milk and manure. Thereby he justifies that Art. 48 of the Indian Constitution becomes imperative for the imposition of ban on cow slaughter. Though not successful at the centre, the MP was successful in imposing such a ban through an Ordinance in his seat in Uttar Pradesh as the Chief Minister.
The facts let the cat out of the bag that the patronage and favouritism of particular majoritarian religionist reflected in all the Bills of Yogi Adityanath. Most of the slaughterhouses were even working by the licence received under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. His intentions were made into reality when he sworn in as the UP-Chief Minister by demarcating some areas of cow slaughter as illegal and hotspot and reasons behind this stated by the officials were that of “disturbance to communal harmony”. The most unfortunate matter within this imposition of ban is that the police force who forms the guardian of citizens are now cluttered in the fancy of slaughterhouse capturing whereas some parts of the country were witnessing communal and political turmoil clustered with fulmination. The National Security Act and the Gangster Act scrutinised the smugglers and slaughters. Correspondingly the MP Yogi Adityanath vindicated that Sachar Commission as an “attempt to divide the country on communal lines”. The effective mechanism to tackle the support was to hold on the religious sentiments of the common people evident in his requests for the erection of graveyard walls imprinting the communal violence in Gorakhpur.
Accordingly, cow became the nidus of our country and cow protection our national mantra. It seems to have quite controversial since 2014. Veer Savarkar had once marked his statement in contradiction to the rest of the party leaders that “Care for cow, don’t worship”. It might end up in total impairment of our secular democracy which doesn’t acknowledge any religion as the State religion in spite going behind cow slaughter for worship of the so called ‘Gomata’, the compassionate Hindu feel of gratitude. Gandhi in his prayer in 1947 has been insisted that “In India no law can be made to ban cow-slaughter. It means coercion against those Indians who are not Hindus.” The assumption of India becoming the land under the majoritarian rule is erroneous. The country is now in divided thoughts of religiously empowered and dictatorship.
In between these political and religious outrages, ban of cow slaughter has been challenged before the honourable Court on the grounds of right to carry any trade and occupation under Art. 19(1) (g) and right to life and liberty under Art. 21. On the other hand, the responsibility over the State to have protection of natural environment and living creatures. Judgements made by the Court in cases like Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (1958) and petitions evolved in 2005 etc. are really concerned of this matter.
How these can be divine? How the worship can be dragged under Utilitarian theory of Bentham? How can someone coerce the pledge of serving cow if that religion is not accompanied by the rest?
CONCLUSION
Our country is going through a series of reforms accommodating various ideologies and communities. Of such a democratic country to work in smooth functioning way, the balanced working of legislature, executive and judiciary is required. Of them legislature is the supreme authority in the case of law making in which the intention of citizens of the country is reflected by way of their elected representatives. From this article, a series of private member bill introduced by the then MP Yogi Adityanath in Lok Sabha during the year 2014 alone. The main crux of these developments is that each proposal are having its long drawn out effects which can be seen even after 6 more years of the introduction of the Bill. But now the State in which the then MP is now the Chief Minister is prosecuting each of those topics which were controversial issues in the Parliament as well as for the public concern one by one. Each of these Bills by a private member in the Parliament has once came up as a petition before the Court at various strata in our country. This itself indicates that the issues raised by such private members are gaining support especially with the token of the ruling Government and crave for the religious and communal sentiments in the political melodrama for which India has set its rostrum lately.
Correspondingly, many fervent scepticisms on this noteworthy issue might be streamlining through the minds of the citizens. In the light of such handful Bills of private members like the Transgender Bill, 2019, whether these sensational issues also come up with the achievement of the intentions of the proposer? Whether the judgements of various judicial authorities be playing their prominent role in case of enforcement of these Bills in the coming years? Whether these Bills merely exist as the political whimsy of the right-wing extremist party? Does the Bills might be enacted with sufficient changes done at the focal point in which controversies emerged? These queries can only become certain after we citizens scrutinise the intentions of the legislature in the following years.
REFERENCES
(1) ‘India, That Is Bharat’: One Country, Two Names,’ Catherine Clementin Ojha <https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3717 >
(3) ‘Uniform Civil Code: Implications of Supreme Court Interventions,’ S. P. Sathe (1995).
(4) Uniform Civil Code (Article 44 of the Constitution) A Dead Letter, Shabeer Ahmad, The Indian Journal of Political Science.
(5) Towards a Uniform Civil Code: Judicial Vicissitudes (From Sarla Mudgal to Lily Thomas), Virendra Kumar, Journal of the Indian Law Institute (2000).
(6) A Uniform Civil Code in India: The State of the Debate in 2014, Nivedita Menon, Feminist Studies (2014).
(7) prsindia.org
(8) Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, CIVIL APPEAL 10972 of 2013.
(9) The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, A.I.R. 1952 Bom. 84.
(10) National Textile Workers v. PR. Ramkrishnan, 1983 A.I.R.750.
(11) John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 611.
(12) Mohammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 S.C.C. 5556.
(13) Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, 1959 S.C.R. 629.