E-Paper
Opposition raises concerns over parts of two bills, wants detailed review
The legislations are pertaining to increasing the minimum age of marriage from 18 to 21 years for women and amendments to the Biological diversity bill.
Opposition parties want detailed review of two legislations, pertaining to increasing the minimum age of marriage from 18 to 21 years for women and amendments to the Biological diversity bill, as they have reservations about some parts of the proposed bills.
A senior Congress leader told HT on condition of anonymity that the bill that intends to increase the minimum legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years “needs to be read very carefully”. The proposed bill was cleared by the Union cabinet last week, but is yet to be introduced in Parliament in the ongoing winter session, which only has four days remaining.
The Congress leader also termed the bill as “potentially divisive” and aimed at “electoral benefits” after reports emerged that many Muslim organisations in Kerala have criticised the Union government’s move, which the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) has welcomed.
“We will definitely ask the bill to be sent to a parliamentary committee for in-depth scrutiny,” said the leader, an Opposition strategist.
The bill that aims to bring uniformity in the marriageable age of men and women may contain amendments to faith-based personal laws dealing with marriage and inheritance.
Muslim League leader ET Mohammad Basheer on Friday introduced an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha, saying the decision was against the Muslim personal law and that it was another step towards introducing a uniform civil code in the country.
“We will oppose this. The government is trying to implement the Sangh Parivar’s favourite agenda of uniform civil code. The Muslim personal law board clearly defines marriage, divorce and right to property. These issues relate to our faith,” Basheer had said.
Speaking about the Biodiversity bill that would be sent to a select panel, at least two other Opposition leaders maintained that the bill was brought without any consultation with stakeholders— a usual practice before bringing bills related to environment— and pointed out that “there is no provision in the bill to protect or increase the stake of local communities in sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity”.
The Opposition finds the bill to cater benefits to the Ayush industry, but without any provision to enhance the protection of biodiversity.
