Amendments of contention

Arun Jaitley is planning to change all of this. The Law Minister will move the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Bill, 2000 in the upper house as soon as the Rajya Sabha is allowed to function.

It was listed to be taken up in the house two days ago, but could not be debated upon because of the ongoing ruckus over the Ayodhya issue. Jaitley has already held a series of meetings with women MPs and with the Left parties to mobilise support for the amendment.

The adoption of the Bill, however, hinges on the Congress. Though it has to be passed by a simple majority, the NDA does not have the requisite numbers in the upper house.

Opinion is divided in the party, though many Congress Christian members are inclined to support the Bill. ‘‘Personally, I am for these three amendments,’’ said Mabel Rebello, Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha. ‘‘We must have parity, particularly when we are committed to 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and in legislatures’’. She said that she would press for more amendments.

However, Congress heavyweights are reluctant to do anything which enables the BJP to hog the credit for helping the minorities. They perceive it as a move by Jaitley to make a peace offering to the Christian community, at any rate to the Christian women, just as BJP chief Bangaru Laxman held out an olive branch to the Muslim community.

On the other hand, they are aware that Sonia Gandhi, who has championed the cause of more women in politics, will have mud on her face if her party takes a stand against gender equality.

Party veterans are therefore taking shelter behind the ‘‘need for comprehensive measure’’, which is the surest way of killing the Bill. A consensus on all aspects of marriage and divorce for Christians is an illusory goal. Congress leaders are also talking about ‘‘not doing anything to interfere in the personal law without the consent of the community’’ a ploy to play on the fears of the minorities.

Jaitley argues against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He said, ‘‘Not a single Christian group has written to us opposing these three amendments. Many have written to us supporting them. We have taken care of religious sensibilities. We are not even using the word divorce in the Bill, only annulment. We have not changed the scheme of the existing Act.

‘‘Secondly, Parliament has a constitutional duty to legislate non-discriminatory provisions in place of discriminatory ones when the High Courts have struck down.’’

The Bill will give women parity with men in matters of divorce. Time and again in its reports, the Law Commission has suggested that the law be amended.Half a dozen high courts in the country have struck down the discriminatory provisions in The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the grounds that they do not adhere to the principles of equality and life with dignity guaranteed in the Constitution.

Earlier this year, Jaitley’s predecessor Ram Jethmalani had tried to bring a comprehensive bill to make changes in the laws of marriage and divorce for Christians, but it died a natural death because of lack of consensus in the community. Jethmalani had elicited the opinion of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, and of Christian MPs and NGOs.

A consensus had however emerged at the time that three facets of the existing law must change. Jaitley has latched on to these, and they form the core of the amendment bill drafted by his ministry. They pertain to Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, which enabled a man to annul a marriage on the ground that his wife was living in adultery. But the wife had to prove either incestuous adultery or adultery with cruelty or with desertion.

Similarly, a man, seeking divorce, could claim damages from the person with whom his wife has an adulterous relationship, but this right was not available to the woman.

Thirdly, unlike other communities, where an edict for divorce is given by a district judge, the annulment of Christian marriages had to be confirmed by the High Court.The Law Minister makes a case for passing the amendments on which there is a measure of agreement. ‘‘The other suggestions being made by members can be referred to a parliamentary committee which can help create a consensus on them.’’