NEW DELHI: The Centre's bill to make fast triple talaq a legal offence can have attracted complaint that marriage is a civil contract and breaches therein will have to no longer invite penal consequences, but the regulation seems in sync with the Supreme Court's August 22 ruling mentioning fast oral talaq to be "manifestly arbitrary".
Some political events have mentioned triple talaq is a religious issue and will have to be left to the group to decide while others maintained that a ban on it will hurt the basic rights of Muslims to control their very own affairs.
There are nonetheless others who imagine the bill is fallacious. If the bill is erroneous, Parliament can remedy the defects via debate. But to mention that the regulation is antithetical to the rights supplied for minorities under Article 25 is to argue that the five-judge Constitution bench had were given its basics unsuitable in mentioning triple talaq unconstitutional.
The SC had mentioned: "Triple talaq is only a form of talaq which is permissible in law, but at the same time, stated to be sinful by the very Hanafi school which tolerates it... Triple talaq forms no part of Article 25 (which guarantees right to profess a religion of choice). Merely because the practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible. After introduction of Shariat Act, 1937, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible. What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well." So, the argument of political events that triple talaq used to be a religious issue used to be rejected via the SC.
Triple talaq used to be held to be violative of Article 14, with the SC announcing it used to be "manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it".
The bid to punish those who might need to take recourse to triple talaq even after the SC order has parallels too. To remove the evil of dowry, Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961 and later, went on so as to add Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code, which jails a husband and his kinfolk on a trifling criticism from a lady about cruelty. Cruelty in a matrimonial home could be without physical assault, because the SC ruled in several circumstances making verbal abuse and mental torture a part of cruelty.
Threatening to irrevocably nullify a wedding the usage of triple talaq in an instant may also be humiliating and demeaning to Muslim women and amounts to the worst form of cruelty in a marital home, fit sufficient to attract 498A. Since triple talaq has been declared illegal, Muslim women can also whinge under Section 498A in opposition to husbands if the bill fails to transform regulation as a result of opposition via political events.
To remove social evils, Parliament has taken steps every now and then and prescribed penal consequences. Untouchability used to be abolished via the Constitution when it came into power in 1950. Yet, the practice continued, forcing Parliament to enact the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, renamed as Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. It punished the ones practising untouchability, at once or not directly, with imprisonment of six months.
This tells us that even though the SC declared triple talaq unconstitutional, the practice will continue in the absence of penal consequences.
Some political events have mentioned triple talaq is a religious issue and will have to be left to the group to decide while others maintained that a ban on it will hurt the basic rights of Muslims to control their very own affairs.
There are nonetheless others who imagine the bill is fallacious. If the bill is erroneous, Parliament can remedy the defects via debate. But to mention that the regulation is antithetical to the rights supplied for minorities under Article 25 is to argue that the five-judge Constitution bench had were given its basics unsuitable in mentioning triple talaq unconstitutional.
The SC had mentioned: "Triple talaq is only a form of talaq which is permissible in law, but at the same time, stated to be sinful by the very Hanafi school which tolerates it... Triple talaq forms no part of Article 25 (which guarantees right to profess a religion of choice). Merely because the practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible. After introduction of Shariat Act, 1937, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible. What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well." So, the argument of political events that triple talaq used to be a religious issue used to be rejected via the SC.
Triple talaq used to be held to be violative of Article 14, with the SC announcing it used to be "manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it".
The bid to punish those who might need to take recourse to triple talaq even after the SC order has parallels too. To remove the evil of dowry, Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961 and later, went on so as to add Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code, which jails a husband and his kinfolk on a trifling criticism from a lady about cruelty. Cruelty in a matrimonial home could be without physical assault, because the SC ruled in several circumstances making verbal abuse and mental torture a part of cruelty.
Threatening to irrevocably nullify a wedding the usage of triple talaq in an instant may also be humiliating and demeaning to Muslim women and amounts to the worst form of cruelty in a marital home, fit sufficient to attract 498A. Since triple talaq has been declared illegal, Muslim women can also whinge under Section 498A in opposition to husbands if the bill fails to transform regulation as a result of opposition via political events.
To remove social evils, Parliament has taken steps every now and then and prescribed penal consequences. Untouchability used to be abolished via the Constitution when it came into power in 1950. Yet, the practice continued, forcing Parliament to enact the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, renamed as Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. It punished the ones practising untouchability, at once or not directly, with imprisonment of six months.
This tells us that even though the SC declared triple talaq unconstitutional, the practice will continue in the absence of penal consequences.
Triple talaq: Penal law in sync with past ones on social evils
![Triple talaq: Penal law in sync with past ones on social evils]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
December 29, 2017
Rating:
