New Delhi: Supreme Court in a landmark ruling on Tuesday ruled that divorce among Muslims through the practice of triple talaq was “null, unlawful and unconstitutional.”
Triple talaq – the personal law by which Muslim men can instantly divorce their wives by uttering talaq three times – “is not an integral part of religious practice and violates constitutional morality,” the Supreme Court panel of judges said.
Indian Judge JS Khehar (Sikh), Judges Kurian Joseph (Christian), Rohinton Nariman (Parsi), Uday Lalit (Hindu) and SA Abdul Nazeer (Muslim).
While Supreme Judge JS Khehar and Judge S Abdul Nazeer wanted to put the triple talaq on hold for six months until the government made a law on this, judges Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman and UU Lalit ruled that the practice was “manifestly Arbitrary and violating the Constitution. ” It should be shut down, they said.
“Taking into account the different opinions recorded by a 3: 2 majority, the practice of” talaq-e-bidet “or triple talaq is left aside,” said the five-judge constituency bank in an order of 395 pages.
The Constitution has so far held that the 1400-year-old triple talaq is legal for Muslims, but many aggrieved women, divorced by letter, in SMS, Whatsapp and even Skype challenged the controversial practice.
The victims, including Shayara Bano, whose husband used triple talaq to divorce by letter in 2015, went to the highest court in India to seek a sentence.
The three judges in favor of the prohibition of triple talaq said that the practice was against the basic principles of Islam.
The special court referred to the abolition of the triple talaq in Islamic countries and asked why independent India could not get rid of it. More than 20 Muslim countries, including neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned the practice.
These judges called triple talaq called the practice “bad in law”.
The minority verdict by CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer said that the triple talaq may be “sinful,” but the court could not interfere in personal laws considered a fundamental right.
Instead, they preferred to keep the practice for six months, calling on political parties to put aside differences and help the Center draft legislation.
Judges in the verdict of the minority said that if the Center did not bring a law within six months, then its command over triple talaq would continue.
CJI Khehar and Nazeer also expressed hope that the legislation of the Center would take into account the concerns of Muslim bodies and Sharia law.
The Center had previously told the bank that it would come up with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if triple talaq was considered invalid and unconstitutional by the apex court.
The government said that the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community – talaq-e-bidden, Talaq Hasan, and Talaq Ahsan – were “unilateral” and “extrajudicial.”
He argued that all personal laws should conform to the Constitution and that the rights of marriage, divorce, property, and inheritance should be treated in the same class.
The Center said that the triple talaq was not an integral part of Islam, not a matter of “majority against minority”, but an “intracommunity struggle” between Muslim men and private women.
The Bank held sessions during the summer holidays to decide the validity of the triple talaq. I was listening to a batch of petitions presented by Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality. The hearing was completed in six days.
The petitioners had questioned the validity of the triple talaq and had argued that it violated the fundamental right of Muslim women to equality.
In contrast, the Muslim Personal Law Board of India (AIMPLB) presented a ‘ni khana ma’ (marriage agreement) project, which said that the boyfriend would not resort to instant triple talaq to seek a divorce. The AIMPLB said that a resolution to this effect had been approved and sent to all the Kazis of the country.
The AIMPLB had stated that triple talaq may be sinful, but it was a practice in existence for about 1400 years. “We do not want the court to go on a slippery slope.” The court must not venture into the area and interpret something that is not in its domain. Personal law, customs, and faith can not be tested under the guise of fundamental rights “The Muslim junta said.
Through its senior adviser, Kapil Sibal, AIMPLB had warned the court to decide this matter, as it could provoke a violent reaction in the Muslim community, which could see its rights
