ISLAMABAD, Feb 6: The Supreme Court was requested on Tuesday to ban wedding meals by declaring a law adopted by parliament last year that allowed people to serve ‘one-dish’ meal at wedding ceremonies to be against the Constitution.
In a rare show of unanimity, parliament had passed an MMA-sponsored private bill — the Prohibition of Ostentatious Display and Wasteful Expense Act 2006 -- to allow serving ‘one-dish’ meal at wedding ceremonies in August 2006.
The petitioner, Tariq Aziz, also sought a declaration from the apex court that the law was inconsistent with and contrary to the court’s earlier judgment.
Both the Senate and the National Assembly had adopted the bill after the Supreme Court ordered strict enforcement of the Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance 2000 that allowed only ‘hot and cold drinks’ at wedding ceremonies.
Though the bill was moved to revive one-dish but it actually facilitated the serving of at least six meals during various wedding ceremonies.
On Nov 5, 2004, the Supreme Court had revoked the Punjab government’s permission to serve guests with one dish at wedding receptions. The Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Act V of 2003 had allowed serving of one dish to a maximum of 300 guests at weddings.
The federal government, through secretaries of the cabinet division and law and justice division, are respondents in the petition.The exploitative customs of extravagance and ostentatious displays on marriage functions, the petitioner contended, had added to the miseries of the poor. The lower-, middle- and poor-classes of the society are being crushed under the evils of extraordinary displays of wealth in the shape of dowry endowments and serving guests at wedding ceremonies with several dishes.
He said that such extravagance was against all norms and values known to a civilised society, adding that ceremonies like Mayun, Mehndi/Rasm-i-Hina, Baarat on the eve of marriage and the custom of displaying large dowries were all of Hindu origin and had nothing to do with the Islamic concept of marriage.
The petitioner feared that if the law was allowed to be implemented, it would deprive a large number of people to wed their sisters and daughters and was, therefore, patently discriminatory.
