Raising marriageable age of girls: A death blow to 'mobocracy'

On December 15, the Union cabinet approved a proposal to raise the marriageable age of women from 18 to 21 years on par with men. Though, per se, there is nothing wrong in bringing the marriageable age of women on par with men, but the Bill is likely to face rough weather due to vote-bank politics from Muslims and their 'messaiahs', including the red brothers and others vying to garner the votes of not only Muslims, but also Christians and Dalits.

In a democracy which ensures the crown to the party getting the support of more heads than others, each vote is considered precious. It is true that in this number game country's economy suffers heavily; but considering the enormous benefit it generates to the power-hungry politicians, everything is fair.

This is precisely the reason why communal parties like AIMIM and IUML have grabbed the opportunity to criticise the proposal at the earliest. These parties, whose communal history and track-record of killings, raping, burning and looting the majority population just because it consists of Hindus, are busy in fire-fighting exercise to save their vote-bank.

The lame argument advanced by the AIMM that in UK and Canada, the marriageable was lower than 18 does not cut any ice, because in India, the fertility rate of women is much higher than in those countries. Similarly, equating the marriageable age with voting age and contracting age too, is like comparing a hen with a bull.

Even the child marriages can be ignored because in most of the cases though the marriage rituals are concluded, the married kids do not stay together. The boy and girl stay with their respective parents until they attain the age of maturity. Therefore, their marriage is not consummated until they become adults.

The fact of the matter is by raising the age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years a proper enforcement of this provision would result in curbing the population explosion to a great extent. The ruling BJP with its agenda of Hindutva has, thus taken the bull by its horns.

Considered to be the first step forward in the direction of bringing in the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the move is undoubtedly in the national interest. True, if under the pretext of secular Constitution certain communities can indulge in love-Jihad and turn the women-folk as children-producing factories, there is nothing wrong by applying the same logic to honour the majority wish and declare the country as a Hindu Rashtra with special privileges to its majority population of Hindus. Hope, the ruling NDA government headed by the BJP would show its guts in so doing instead of making patch-work here and there.

SC on arbitration

In a case titled, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors, the Apex court looked into the question as to whether respondent No.2 was right in passing the order on the very first day of hearing of conciliation proceedings without allowing the appellants to be heard . A Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Subhash Reddy, in course of hearing of the appeal, held that if conciliation proceedings fail, then arbitration proceedings could be resorted to. Quoting Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the Bench held that proceedings under conciliation and arbitration cannot be clubbed.

The Bench elucidating the difference between conciliation and arbitration stated: "In conciliation, the conciliator assists the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement in an impartial and independent manner. In arbitration, the arbitral tribunal/arbitrator adjudicates the disputes between the parties. The claim has to be proved before the arbitrator, if necessary, by adducing evidence, even though the rules of the Civil Procedure Code or Indian Evidence Act may not apply."

Advocates' agitation in Indore

About 5,000 practicing advocates of Indore (Madhya Pradesh) have been agitating for the last two weeks against some judges of the subordinate courts for their insulting behaviour. The agitating lawyers have presented several demands to the higher judiciary and the government, including according due respect to them as they are also officers of the court and ensuring protection from the criminal elements.

Indeed, this dismal situation in judiciary is not just prevailing in the courts in Madhya Pradesh, but has spread to many other States also. Delhi, Ludhiana, Lucknow and many other places have recently reported blasts, murders and assaults following which even the Chief Justice of India has expressed his concern. Hope and remedial measures have to be initiated before it is too late.

SC against its regional benches

Going by the reply to a question given by Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju in the Parliament recently, it has become crystal clear that while the Central government has been in favour of setting up of the regional benches of the Supreme Court of India, by whatever name they may be called, the Supreme Court has turned down the proposal.

The reply has left the advocates of the regional benches of the Apex court high and dry. Meanwhile, according to sources, the South India Advocates JAC which is spearheading the movement for establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court, including one in Hyderabad for the southern region, has decided to intensify the movement by roping in the Central and State Bar Councils, advocates' associations, like-minded public representatives and people at large.