The Opposition on Friday managed to stall BJP member Kirodi Lal Meena’s private member’s Bill, “The Uniform Civil Code in India Bill, 2020,” in the Rajya Sabha.
At least three members including MDMK’s Vaiko, DMK’s Tiruchi Siva and CPI(M)’s Elamaram Kareem sent letters to Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu objecting to introduction of the Bill saying that it will fan communal passions in the backdrop of ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
In the post-lunch session, when his name was called out by Deputy Chairman Harivansh to move the Bill, Mr. Meena was absent. The opposition benches loudly protested against the introduction of the Bill.
To become a law, a private member’s Bill needs to be endorsed by the government and cleared in both Houses of Parliament. In parliamentary history, there are very few instances of a private member’s Bill being turned into law.
Second Bill
Mr. Meena reappeared in the House minutes later to move his second private member’s Bill to provide for special financial assistance to Rajasthan for the purpose of welfare of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for development.
Mr. Meena’s Bill sought to impose a uniform civil code that would subsume all personal laws. “Under the Uniform Civil Code a collection of laws will be prepared which will protect the personal rights of all citizens without considering the religion, which seems to be the need of the hour. In reality this is the foundation stone of secularism,” the statement for objects and reasons of the Bill states.
Mr. Kareem, in his letter to the Chairman, said the Bill “violates the fundamental aspects of the Constitution and there is a chance to affect the communal harmony.” He said the Bill could also aggravate the ongoing country-wide protests against the CAA.
Asked why he was absent when his name was called out, Mr. Meena told The Hindu, “Majority of BJP MPs were absent because of Delhi elections. And I felt that if the opposition asked for a division on whether the Bill should be introduced or not, we would have fallen short of numbers.” He said he would re-attempt to introduce the Bill.
