The Big Fat Wedding Bill
The 2016 Bill seeks to curb expenditure on weddings and cap the number of guests
It’s shaadi time. Or is it? With a jampacked spring wedding season coinciding with the second leg of the budget session of Parliament, these two polar opposite gatherings seem to have found an unlikely connection through the recent Private Member’s Bill that Congress MP Ranjeet Rajan is seeking to introduce in the Lok Sabha. The Marriages (Compulsory Registration and Prevention of Wasteful Expenditure) Bill, 2011, is an exact replica of the bill introduced by Akhilesh Das Gupta in the Rajya Sabha in 2011 and seeks to curb the pomp and show of the Great Indian Wedding.
In the past 20 years, there have been six attempts at introducing similar bills in Parliament. One was 1996, two were in 2005 and there were three in 2011. Four have lapsed and two are still pending. The 2016 Bill seeks to curb not just the expenditure on weddings but also impose a cap on the number of guests invited. The endeavour of the bill is to limit the unbridled extravagance in weddings, as seen in recent times, and to encourage (and enforce) a simpler solemnisation of marriage, across all religions.
The bill seeks to restrict the amount of money spent on a wedding to 25 per cent of the annual income of a family, with a ceiling of Rs 5 lakh. People who spend more than that amount are directed to deposit 10 per cent of the amount, in advance, into a special welfare fund to benefit brides from poorer sections of society. It also seeks to limit the number of people, friends and relatives invited to the wedding. But, beware, any violation of this law can carry with it jail time of up to three years or a fine, or both.
Such bills, apart from being frivolous, show a complete lack of respect for the fundamental rights of citizens. What bills of this nature really seek to do is invade our personal sphere. Neither Parliament nor the government should have the power to decide who one invites to their wedding, how much they spend on it or what food is served there. It is an individual’s personal liberty to choose all of the above, according to her own preferences. Individuals have the right to spend their hard-earned money however they wish and an unjust government policy placing unreasonable restrictions on this freedom of choice will certainly not achieve the desired social objectives.
The bill may be well-intentioned. However, the societal change that is required, considering the ever-growing disparity between the rich and the poor and the resulting burgeoning social inequality, cannot be effected through rash policies and impulsive, knee-jerk measures.
Rather than force another ban/curb on people who are still recovering from the demonetisation debacle, the necessary changes required must come from within the existing social and economic institutions. NGOs like the Robin Hood Army—which distributes leftover food to the needy, not just from restaurants but also from parties and weddings—should be encouraged.
Frankly, discussing such a frivolous bill in Parliament would be tantamount to a shameful waste of valuable time in the budget session, not to mention the taxpayers’ money. In fact, the proposed bill has already gotten too much publicity. Keeping up with the Joneses (or the Sharmas) is not a new phenomenon and today’s society demands that people outspend their neighbours, with pomp and show, simply to fit in. But to change that, a law with penal implications will not be a step in the right direction. If anything, it would only promote unscrupulous spending in black, so as to keep expenditure within the stipulated limit of Rs 5 lakh. Shreya Singhal is an Indian-born lawyer. In 2015, her PIL against section 66A of the Information Technology Act led to it being struck down by the Supreme Court