Guwahati, May 27: Trinamool Congress MLA Sherman Ali Ahmed on Tuesday staged a walkout from the Assam Assembly during discussions on the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, alleging that the BJP-led NDA government had introduced the legislation with “malicious intention”.
Taking part in the debate on the Bill, Ahmed said he found several provisions in the draft legislation acceptable, including measures relating to the minimum legal age for marriage and regulations governing live-in relationships. However, he argued that certain provisions raised concerns regarding constitutional safeguards and religious principles.
Before leaving the House in protest, Ahmed said the government had brought the Bill with an intention he disagreed with and announced his decision to walk out as a mark of opposition.
The Assam government had introduced the UCC Bill on Monday with the aim of establishing a common legal framework on matters such as marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships across communities. The proposed legislation includes provisions to prohibit polygamy, make registration of live-in relationships mandatory and prescribe penalties, including imprisonment of up to seven years for offences related to bigamy or polygamy. Failure to register a live-in relationship could also attract imprisonment for up to three months.
During his speech, Ahmed questioned one of the provisions of the draft legislation that excludes Scheduled Tribes residing in Assam from its ambit. He argued that a law described as “uniform” should not contain exclusions for specific communities.
The TMC leader also expressed reservations over provisions related to marriage, stating that they were inconsistent with certain religious teachings. He claimed that aspects of Islamic teachings concerning multiple marriages were frequently misunderstood and maintained that religious principles should not be disregarded.
Ahmed further stated that although he had initially considered supporting the proposed law, wider consultations should have been conducted before introducing legislation of such significance.
He also argued that the government could not justify bringing laws that, according to him, may conflict with Fundamental Rights by citing Directive Principles of State Policy, while adding that no electoral mandate should override constitutional principles.
