SC suspends triple talaq for 6 months, asks Parliament to make a law

Agencies
August 22, 2017

New Delhi, Aug 22: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended the triple talaq verdict for the next six months with immediate effect. The top court also asked the Parliament to bring in the new law to govern the issue. Three out of five judges hearing the case have declared triple talaq as 'arbitary' and 'unconstitutional'.

A five-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S Abdul Nazeer – all from different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim – heard seven pleas, including five separate petitions, filed by Muslim women challenging the prevalent practice of triple talaq in the community.

Uttarakhand-based Shayara Bano was the first to file a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of Triple talaq.

Expressing happiness on the judgement, Bano told Zee News, “I know the law of triple talaq cannot end. But the Supreme Court has ended the practice. It's a great judgment for Muslim women across the country and for our future generation.”

She further added, “There is no mention of teen talaq in Quraon. It's a fabrication of the society.”

“I have not even seen my children in the last two-three years. I don't know what's happening to them. I hope no one goes through such tremendous mental pressure. Because of triple talaq, children are suffering physical and mental harassment,” said Bano.

“Triple Talaq is a violation to equlity and the dignity of a woman,” said Monika Arora, Supreme Court advocate.

The judges had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing during the summer vacation.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar, while reading the judgement, said that "talaq-e-biddat is not in violation of articles 14,15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution."

He further said the talaq-e-biddat is an integral part of Sunni community, which is being practiced for the last 1000 years.

During the hearing, the top court observed that the practice of triple talaq was the "worst" and "not a desirable" form of dissolution of marriage among Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it "legal".

The Centre had told the bench that it introduce a new law to regulate the instant divorce practice among Muslims, if triple talaq is held invalid and unconstitutional by the top court.

The government had termed all the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community - talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, as "unilateral" and "extra-judicial"

As the Centre sought to flag the issue of gender equality of Muslim women vis-a-vis women in other religions and in Islamic countries, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) asked it to bring a law taking recourse to Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution that permits enactment of law invoking social reforms.

However, AIMPLB had cautioned the constitution bench that "testing the validity of customs and practices was a slippery slope" and cautioned the bench that "testing the validity of customs and practices was a slippery slope".

In the course of the hearing, the AIMPLB issued an advisory to telling the qazis to give an option to Muslim women to opt out of instant triple talaq before giving consent for nikah.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), had equated the issue of triple talaq with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya and these were matters of faith which cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality.

Comments

Close your eyes and think who created this, when i was close my eyes i can`t see anything and ask your creator to guide me in Right path , Don't blame Islam , blame yourself that you can`t identify your  creator.

Sangeeth
 - 
Tuesday, 22 Aug 2017

Dear Saleem, If you want to live in India, then you should follow Indian laws and rules. Any country like that only. I cant live in Saudi without following their rules. Modiji is doing right thing in that way...

Sandesh
 - 
Tuesday, 22 Aug 2017

True mr. unknown. "Islam not just a religion its a lifestlye for peaceful life BY DIVORCING WIFE VERBALLY JUST SAYING TALAQ"

Unknown
 - 
Tuesday, 22 Aug 2017

Islam not just a religion its a lifestlye for peaceful life

Saleem
 - 
Tuesday, 22 Aug 2017

SC cant decide our laws

Rakesh
 - 
Tuesday, 22 Aug 2017

Contradiction is in the case of PM

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 14,2020

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 4,2020

Davanagere, May 3: Karnataka's Davanagere district on Sunday reported 21 COVID-19 positive cases, said Mahantesh Beelagi, Deputy Commissioner.

The number of COVID-19 patients has suddenly taken a giant leap in the district.

"We had sent 94 samples on May 1, on May 2 we sent 72 samples. Today we sent 164 samples for testing. In the last two days, 21 samples have tested positive for coronavirus, we are tracing to know how did all of them came in contact with COVID-19 infected person," said Mahantesh Beelagi.

"Our surveillance team and police team have started tracing the primary and secondary contacts of all 21 people," he added.
Davanagere is currently in the Green Zone.

Meanwhile, 13 new COVID-19 positive cases were reported in Karnataka till 5 pm on Sunday, taking the total number of cases in the state to 614, according to the State Health Department.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 4,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Taking the state government to task, the Karnataka High Court on Monday opined there was a need to rehabilitate or compensate migrant workers whose homes in Tubarahalli and Kundalahalli were demolished by a BBMP engineer last month.

On January 19, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) assistant executive engineer at Marathahalli had taken up a demolition drive stating that the migrant workers residing in the area were “illegal Bangladeshis”.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka was hearing a petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties which contended that the evacuation of the workers was illegal. Stressing the need for relief, the court directed the state government to come clean on its stance and adjourned the hearing to February 10.

Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi submitted that the Union government had issued a circular last year to ascertain the presence of illegal Bangaladesh migrants. “On the basis of this circular, the BBMP officials had written a letter to Marathahalli police sub-inspector on January 18. Based on this letter, the residents in huts were evicted in a civilised manner,” he stated.

The bench, however, differed with the submission. “Who identified them as Bangladeshis before the eviction? Which is the competent authority to do so? Which police officer took up the inquiry?” the bench questioned.

The court also asked whether the government would take up similar eviction drives against illegal buildings of the rich. It also expressed displeasure over the action taken against the BBMP engineer.

“Instead of sending him home, you say you have transferred him. We can’t be mute spectators,” the bench said.

The court did not mince words as it castigated the authorities for failing to act judiciously. “The police and the BBMP are blaming each other. Your action appears to be dangerous. Going by the state of things, it seems that everything is not in order,” it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.