Twitter
Advertisement

Supreme Court agrees to hear triple talaq law, but...

...Asks petitioner, 'Why can't the practice be criminalised like child marriage & dowry laws, if it is still prevalent'

Latest News
article-main
Politician and Islamic scholar Amir Rashadi Madani speaks to media at the lawns of the Supreme Court, in New Delhi on Friday
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The government's ambitious legislation to provide legal cover for Muslim women against triple talaq came under challenge in the Supreme Court on Friday.

Taking up the petitions filed by two Muslim organisations — Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema — and an individual, Amir Rashadi Madani, the bench of Justices NV Ramana and Ajay Rastogi felt there were questions of law that required to be gone into in these petitions.

The bench issued notice on the petitions but refused to fix any date to hear the matter next. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who represented the petitioners, argued that the law titled Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 was arbitrary and unreasonable as it targeted men of one religious community, penalising them with a jail term for a mere civil offence.

Khurshid said once the Supreme Court in its judgment of August 22, 2017, had abolished the practice of triple talaq, where was the need for the Centre to enact a law and convert it into a criminal offence.

Justice Ramana said: "I have a doubt. See, there are many religious practices such as child marriage and dowry in the Hindu community. Such practices are still going on. They have been criminalised. Why can't triple talaq be criminalised similarly if it is still prevalent?"

Khurshid said the problem is not with the pronouncement of triple talaq but its consequences. Hence, if the wife is denied her due, that is to be remedied, he added.

The bench realised that this aspect was certainly a good ground to hear the petition. Besides, the bench also identified two other aspects posed by the 2019 law which became operational since August 1. The bench noted that the 2019 Act does not prescribe any minimum punishment while providing for a maximum term of up to three years imprisonment. According to the petitioners, this punishment was very grave considering that lesser punishments are prescribed for much graver offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Moreover, the pronouncement of triple talaq has been made cognizable and non-bailable under the Act.

Further, the bench noted a third issue emanating in these petitions. It related to Section 7(c) of the Act which provides that before a Muslim man can get bail, the Magistrate has to first hear the Muslim woman. The bench noted, "This provision is akin to money laundering offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act."

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement