Editorial 1 : Kathmandu turn
Introduction: On Monday, K P Sharma Oli will be sworn in as the head of Nepal’s 14th government since 2008, when the country became a republic. The recent events yet again showed the fragility of the Himalayan Kingdom’s politics.
How did the politics unfold in Nepal?
- Last week, Oli’s party, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), withdrew support to the Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” government, ending the latest attempt at an alliance between the Himalayan nation’s leftist forces.
- Prachanda, the head of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), failed a vote of confidence on Friday, after surviving four trust motions since December 2022.
- In his 19-month tenure as PM, the Maoist leader changed coalition partners thrice.
- The Maoist Centre is only the third largest party in Nepal’s 275-member lower house, the Pratinidhi Sabha. Prachanda had managed to navigate Nepal’s choppy political waters by striking bargains with the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Nepali Congress and CPN-UML.
- But on Friday, he was upstaged after Deuba and Oli struck a deal.
The political see-saw in Nepal since 2015 and its implications
- The opportunism of leaders has been the only constant in Nepal’s political landscape since 2015.
- Prachanda has been PM for two terms, Deuba has had two stints at power and Oli will begin his third innings in a country dogged by economic instability, corruption and energy crises.
- Once a rice exporter, Nepal now depends on foodgrain imports and the cement industry, one of the prime employers in the country, is running at 30 per cent capacity.
- The World Bank estimates that the country’s economic growth is not likely to exceed 4 per cent in the current fiscal and the IMF has warned Nepal of a financial crisis if steps are not taken to improve the economy.
New Delhi is watchful of the situation
- New Delhi will be watching the developments in Kathmandu with caution.
- While Prachanda enjoyed goodwill in India, Oli’s hardline stance during the border blockade of 2015, his pro-China position and moves to include disputed territories in Nepal’s map have not gone down well with South Block.
- The Chinese footprint in Nepal is growing.
- However, India continues to be Nepal’s largest trading partner and about eight million Nepalese citizens live and work in India.
- New Delhi would, therefore, do well to take a nuanced position on the politics in the Himalayan nation and ensure that Beijing does not use the latest political turn in Kathmandu to its advantage.
Conclusion: With Prachanda out and Oli in, an Another churn in happened Kathmandu. Political instability could aggravate Nepal’s economic crisis. New Delhi should be alert against Beijing’s moves in a climate of uncertainty.
Editorial 2 : Reaffirming a right
Introduction: The recent Supreme Court judgment, Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana, has upheld the divorced Muslim woman’s rights to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
The significance of latest judgement
- This is a socially beneficial provision.
- With this judgment, we have travelled a full circle from the controversial Supreme Court ruling in the Shah Bano case in 1985 (Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum), which was followed by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 (MWA).
- This Act created a new right for the divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance during the iddat period as well as a fair and reasonable provision for the future.
- The issue now decided by the Supreme Court pertained to whether after the MWA came into force, the divorced Muslim woman is prevented from filing an application under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- This was a confusing issue where various high courts had given contradictory rulings over the last several decades.
- The Supreme Court’s decision has now cleared the ambiguity and has unequivocally held that the new Act has not extinguished the divorced Muslim woman’s rights under the beneficial provision of Section 125 of the CrPC.
A brief summary of the case
- Following are the brief facts of this case.
- The deserted wife had approached the family court in Telangana for maintenance under Section 125 and the family court awarded her Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.
- Meanwhile, the husband divorced her and claimed that after the divorce she was not entitled to claim maintenance.
- He argued her rights now lie under the MWA.
- On his behalf, it was argued that since the 1986 Act provides a more beneficial and efficacious remedy for divorced Muslim women in contradistinction to Section 125 of the CrPC 1973, the recourse lies exclusively under the 1986 Act.
- In addition, it was submitted that the 1986 Act, a special law, prevails over the provisions of CrPC 1973, which is a general law.
- But both these submissions were rejected by the Telangana High Court.
- However, it reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month.
- Against this order, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
- On July 10, the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court, in an elaborate ruling, upheld the wife’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
- This was on the grounds that it is a socially beneficial provision and that the said right is not extinguished by the enactment of the MWA.
- This has laid to rest the prevailing controversy.
Existing precedent
- An important judgment on this issue is Danial Latifi and Another vs Union of India (2001), which examined the constitutional validity of the new Act (Latifi was Shah Bano’s lawyer in the Supreme Court).
- A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while holding that the Act is constitutionally valid, provided an innovative interpretation of Section 3(a) to secure the rights of divorced Muslim women.
- It held that the former husband is required to pay maintenance for the three months of the iddat period and, in addition, also provide a fair and reasonable provision for her entire life, within the iddat period (The iddat period indicates the mandatory period of three months within which the divorced Muslim woman cannot remarry).
- The Court explained this to mean that the husband was required to contemplate the future needs of the divorced wife and make preparatory provisions in advance to meet these needs.
- When the question came up whether the Danial Latifi ruling had clarified the issue of applicability of section 125 of the CrPC to a divorced Muslim woman, it was held that this was not the core issue of contention.
- However, it was stated that there was no express extinguishment of the rights under Section 125 and neither the same was intended nor conceived by the legislature while enacting the 1986 Act.
- It was observed that the domains occupied by the two provisions are entirely different as the secular provision stipulates an inability to maintain oneself for invoking the said rights while Section 3 of the 1986 Act stands independent of one’s ability or inability to maintain oneself.
- Thereby, by adopting a harmonious and purposive approach amidst the two alleged conflicting legislative protections, the divorced Muslim woman’s rights were protected.
The court’s clarification in the judgement
- The Court clarified that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to all the rights of maintenance as are available to other equally situated women in the country and an interpretation otherwise would infringe upon the fundamental rights conferred through Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
- The nature of power and jurisdiction vested with a magistrate by virtue of these provisions is not punitive, neither is it remedial; it is a preventive measure.
- It was also observed that while any such right may or may not exist as a consequence of any of the personal laws applicable to the concerned parties, they shall continue to exist distinctively, and independently, as against the secular provision.
Conclusion: The Court's decision has cleared the ambiguity and unequivocally upheld that the enactment of the Muslim Women Act 1986 does not extinguish a divorced Muslim woman’s rights under the beneficial provision of Section 125 of the CrPC. And hence this will become another milestone in the fight for Women’s rights in India.