Weddings: Govt issued notice on one-dish rule, late-night weddings
The court sought a reply from the government until February 10
PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf of Lahore High Court (LHC) issued a notice on Monday to the provincial government on a petition challenging the Punjab Marriage Functions Ordinance, promulgated to regulate weddings and related ceremonies.
The court sought a reply from the government until February 10. It also sought assistance from the advocate general on the matter.
Munir Ahmad had filed the petition through Muhammad Azhar Siddique submitting the one-dish rule and prohibition of late-night weddings were violations of fundamental rights.
He said the impugned ordinance was related to marriage functions at home… according to Section 2(c) of the ordinance, a house means a private residence and Section 2(g) deals with private residences, a farmhouse or any other property hired to celebrate weddings.
He submitted that holding a wedding at a public place in view of the impugned ordinance had been fixed with consequences… as such it was ultra vires of the Constitution.
He said the ordinance was in violation of Articles 9 (right to life, liberty as per law), 14 (dignity of man, the privacy of home) and 25 (equality) of the Constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 19th, 2016.
Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf of Lahore High Court (LHC) issued a notice on Monday to the provincial government on a petition challenging the Punjab Marriage Functions Ordinance, promulgated to regulate weddings and related ceremonies.
The court sought a reply from the government until February 10. It also sought assistance from the advocate general on the matter.
Munir Ahmad had filed the petition through Muhammad Azhar Siddique submitting the one-dish rule and prohibition of late-night weddings were violations of fundamental rights.
He said the impugned ordinance was related to marriage functions at home… according to Section 2(c) of the ordinance, a house means a private residence and Section 2(g) deals with private residences, a farmhouse or any other property hired to celebrate weddings.
He submitted that holding a wedding at a public place in view of the impugned ordinance had been fixed with consequences… as such it was ultra vires of the Constitution.
He said the ordinance was in violation of Articles 9 (right to life, liberty as per law), 14 (dignity of man, the privacy of home) and 25 (equality) of the Constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 19th, 2016.