ISLAMABAD, Nov 5: The Supreme Court on Friday barred serving of meals or other edibles, except hot and cold (soft) drinks, at wedding ceremonies in clubs, hotels, restaurants, wedding halls, community centres or any other place.
This was stated in a judgment announced by a three-member bench which dismissed constitutional petitions challenging various sections of an act passed by the Punjab Assembly in this regard. However, members of a family attending a marriage ceremony can be served meals within the premises of the house, the court ordered.
The court said that no person owning or running a hotel, restaurant, wedding hall, community centre or club being the site of marriage ceremony or any caterer shall serve or allow anyone to serve any meals or edibles to persons participating in the ceremony, other than hot and cold soft drinks.
The Supreme Court also revoked the Punjab government's permission of entertaining guests with one dish. "The federal government's law of prohibiting meals at Valima receptions still holds and, therefore, is applicable throughout Pakistan," said the 23-page judgment.
Authored by Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, the judgment invalidated, for being violative of the constitution, the Punjab government's act to allow serving of one dish to a maximum of 300 guests at Valima receptions.
The chief justice also observed that functions related to marriage such as mayun/rasm-i-henna, baraat and the custom of giving large dowries were of Hindu origin and had nothing to do with the Islamic concept of marriage.
Social evils emanating from such exploitative customs have not only added to the misery of the poor but have also put at stake their very existence, the judgment said.
Earlier, the Supreme Court on Nov 2003 had lifted the ban on meals in wedding ceremonies by declaring it un-Islamic. Since the former chief justice Sheikh Riaz could not sign his judgment as he had to vacate his post after the 17th constitutional amendment, a three-member bench comprising the incumbent chief justice, Justice Javed Iqbal and Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani had to re-hear the entire case.
A consortium of leading caterers, restaurant-owners and poultry farmers, led by Chaudhry Mohammad Siddiqui, had challenged the vires of the Marriage (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000, to seek a direction to allow meals in such ceremonies. The ban on serving meals was introduced by the Nawaz Sharif government to check wasteful expenses and to make such ceremonies less expensive for the poor.
The judgment also discussed at length different Ahadith and instances from Islamic traditions to deduct that the Valima invitation was a pre-Islamic concept, but was liked and adopted by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him).
It said the invitation of Valima should be extended to all in the vicinity instead of confining it to relatives, friends and influential people, while the reception should be held within means of the person hosting the Valima.
It said that since the federal law had supremacy under Article 143 of the Constitution, the provincial enactment of allowing one dish was inconsistent with the federal law and was being struck down.
"Two materially different laws on the same subject - one passed by the federal legislature and the other by a provincial legislature - are against the spirit of the federation," the order maintained.
The order also deplored the custom of displaying dowry before guests and held that open demands for dowries had crushed the middle and poor segments of the society. "Such evils of extravagance and ostentatious displays of wealth are unacceptable as it were against all norms and values known to a civil society and therefore must stop," the chief justice observed.
"It is the duty of the state to encourage the celebration of marriage ceremonies in simple and informal ways like performance of Nikah in a local mosque to eliminate inconvenience and harm to the society," the order said.
The order also explained that the federal government's law never prohibited the holding of Valima and people were at liberty to celebrate marriage and Valima. "What is prohibited is extravagance and ostentatious display of wealth," it said, adding that Islam laid great emphasis on simplicity.
Muslims of the subcontinent had sacrificed a lot for an independent state to live in accordance with the teachings of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), the judgment observed.
"In our view the ordinance was framed with the noble object of prohibiting extravagance - an important step to prepare the society to curb the tendency of wasteful expenses," the judgment said.
