Bar&Bench News Network
Chancellor and Founder of OP Jindal Global Law School, Congress Member of Parliament from the Kurukshetra district from Haryana, Naveen Jindal, supported the demand of Khap Panchayat leaders asking for an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, banning marriages between members belonging to the same sub-caste (gotra).
Khap Panchayats are informal caste-based village councils prevalent in parts of Western India including Haryana, Punjab and parts of Rajasthan. These panchayats are unconstitutional and have no legal sanction but enjoy immense popularity with the rural community due to their quick turnaround time in dispensing “justice”.
Jindal, also the Vice President and Managing Director of the Jindal Steel & Power Limited and the Congress Party’s blue-eyed-boy is seen as a progressive thinker. He fought the government for 8 years and took the battle to the Supreme Court for the citizen’s right to hoist the Indian flag at homes and institutions. Senior Advocates Shanti Bhushan, Arun Jaitley, Harish Salve, K.K. Venugopal and Soli Sorabjee had advised Jindal.
Jindal is also seen as a promoter of several public and private partnerships and holds several senior positions in trade bodies including the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. His statement on Monday assuring Khap Panchayat leaders, that he will take their demand of amending the Hindu Marriage Act with the Government is seen as an unwelcome surprise by many including members of his own party.
Khap Panchayats, which have been in existence since the times of Ashoka, work as an informal justice system. They have been widely criticized for handing out sentences which include honour killings to couples who choose to marry within members of the same village or within the same sub-caste. This is seen as an affront to a rigid and archaic honour system widely followed in rural areas.
Jindal, in his statement to the media today, defended his stand that as an MP his duties include airing opposing views to the government. Speaking to media he said today “I am opposed to honour killings. I told them not to take the law in their hands. I am with them so long as they are within the ambit of the law.”
The Congress Party was quick to react to these statements of Naveen Jindal with Senior Advocate and spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi saying, “Individual persons or MPs may have their own opinion. That does not mean there is a change in the stance of the Congress.”
The Haryana High Court in a landmark judgment last month had awarded capital punishment to five persons for murdering a couple for marrying against societal norms. Naveen’s comments come to many as a surprise, especially considering the public outrage that surrounds the image of the Khap Panchayats.
The OP Jindal Global Law School, which boasts of an international faculty and has plans on introducing the Law School Admission Test system has been aggressively marketing itself as the pioneer in changing the face of the Indian legal education system.
|
- 1. "The express of tactical support towards Khap Panchayats' demand of amendment in Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) by Naveen Jindal as well as Shadi Lal Batra's attempt in introducing a Private Members’ Bill in this regard in Rajya Sabha signifies not more than a “political gimmick” by these Congress MPs to score a point over their political opponents. Their party is still to spell out its official stand on the vexed issue. If it were so, why the Hooda government doesn’t takes initiative to get such a Bill introduced in state assembly itself after seeking prior permission of Central government through Union Home Ministry as HMA is a central legislation. The states are competent enough to effect amendment in a central statute after adopting a due process. Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu had in recent past made state-specific amendments in HMA. There is no rationale of introducing a Private Members’ Bill in Upper House of Parliament when it is clear that it is not going to pass through. Pertinent that when “Sarvjatiya Sarv Khap Mahapanchayat” urged amendment in HMA banning marriage between parties belonging to same-gotra as well as belonging to same and nearby village, the INLD was first to come out in open support of it. Actually, the support of these parties is just because they dont want a dent in their petty vote banks. ". HEMANT KUMAR ADVOCATE, AMBALA CITY HARYANA
Related Stories
- Good news for India as Legal Outsourcing gets formal support from Ohio Supreme Court
- Integreon to provide support services to Simmons
- New, socially-relevant Law University for Orissa; Vice Chancellor Faizan Mustafa on his dreams for NLUO
- CJI in cash-in-bag storm
- Economic Law Practice promotes six; creates new designations
- JGLS joins hands with Indiana University and Michigan Law School
- Somnath shows his support for Justice Soumitra Sen
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










