File photo of the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of parliament. Photograph:( ANI )
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 which was scheduled to be tabled in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday could not be presented following the adjournment of the Rajya Sabha.
The Upper House was adjourned after it passed some bills including Interim Budget and Finance Bill for 2019-20 without debate.
Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu in his customary address at the close of the session rued that precious time of the House was lost in protests, stalling proceedings.
The Budget Session of Parliament commenced on January 31.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 which was initially scheduled to be tabled in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday could not be presented following the adjournment of the Rajya Sabha.
Amid the ruckus created by SP members, the Rajya Sabha was adjourned for the day without the bill being tabled. The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha in the recently concluded winter session of Parliament, leading to raging protests in the northeastern states.
The bill aimed to grant Indian citizenship to non-muslims who fled religious persecution from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan and entered India before December 31, 2014.
While The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on December 27 last year with 245 votes in favour and 11 against the bill. The opposition parties had demanded the bill for further examining by a Select Committee of Parliament. The Centre, however, rejected the demand.
The Centre had re-promulgated an ordinance in January this year as the revised bill could not be passed in the Upper House of the parliament where the government lacks a majority.
The bill criminalised the practice of instant triple talaq with a provision of three years imprisonment to the erring husband.
The issue of triple talaq was taken up in the Parliament in August last year after a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled "unconstitutional" a practice that allows Muslim men to divorce their wives simply by uttering "talaq" three times in quick succession.
In a landmark 3-2 verdict, the apex court found the practice un-Islamic and "arbitrary", and disagreed that triple talaq was an integral part of religious practice.
(With inputs from agencies)