Triple Talaq Illegal, Says Supreme Court In Landmark Judgement Tuesday August 22,2017

The Supreme Court of India(SCI) Tuesday Aug 22,2017 banned the controversial Islamic practice that allows men to leave their wives immediately by stating "talaq" (divorce) three times.

The verdict vindicates the stand of the government, which had said triple talaq violates fundamental rights of women.

 Several Muslim women who have been divorced because of it, including on Skype and on WhatsApp, had appealed to the top court to end the practice.

1. The Supreme Court on Tuesday Aug 22,2017 set aside the practice of instant triple talaq saying it was violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Three judges on the 5 judge Constitution bench decided against triple talaq while two ruled in favour. Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit said triple talaq needs to go while CJI JS Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer backed triple talaq. A bench comprising five judges, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, had reserved its verdict on May 18, six days after the hearing began on May 11.
   
2. The judges in favour of a new law wanted the government to take into account the concerns of some Muslim organisations who are critical of any attempts to meddle with religious laws, arguing it curtails their constitutional right to govern their affairs.
3. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a non-governmental body which oversees the application of Muslim personal law, opposes any ban on triple talaq and argues this is a religious matter and not for the courts.
4. The Supreme Court referred to the fact that several Islamic countries like Pakistan do not allow triple talaq; judges questioned why it should not be abolished in India.
5. The Supreme Court has for the first time reviewed whether triple talaq is fundamental to Islam and therefore legally binding. Three of the five judges held that triple talaq violates the tenets of the Quran.
6. Critics say it leaves women destitute and robs them of basic rights. "We told the court that the practice has no basis in the law or in the Koran," said Balaji Srinivasan, a lawyer for Shayara Bano whose husband split from her by writing "talaq" three times on a piece of paper.
7. The verdict was delivered by a panel of five judges from different major faiths - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. Arguments concluded in May.
8. India allows religious institutions to govern matters of  personal law - marriage, divorce and property inheritance - through civil codes; so far, triple talaq has been considered a legal avenue for the country's nearly 180 million Muslims to end marriages.
9. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has backed the petitioners in this landmark case, declaring triple talaq unconstitutional, and derogatory and discriminatory for women. In different public speeches, PM Modi has spoken against the practice, pledging to protect the right to equality of all women.
10. The BJP has long pushed for a uniform civil code to be enforced which would end the reach of different religious laws in civil issues, sanctioned originally to protect the independence of different faiths

Who are the petitioners?
Shayara Bano
There are six petitioners in the case. The main plea in the case was filed by Shayara Bano, a 36-year-old whose husband of 15 years divorced her by pronouncing triple talaq. Bano, who is battling multiple ailments following several abortions, received a talaqnama (divorce) by post while she was staying with her parents in Kashipur, Uttarakhand.
In her petition, Bano argued that “the Muslim husband’s right to ask for divorce by uttering talaq three times in a row is completely unilateral, unguided, absolute and has no rationale. It cannot be identified with Muslim culture and is not part of Muslim law. So it is not part of religion and hence not part of the right to practice or propagate religion and deserves no protection.”
Ishrat Jahan
Thirty-year-old Ishrat Jahan’s husband uttered talaq three times over the phone and allegedly took away her four children. She was left at the mercy of her extended family in Howrah.
Jahan’s lawyer V K Biju said ahead of the court verdict: “I did ask her to come, I do not know if she will be able to. She has been unreachable for some time. She lost her four children and her husband divorced her over phone. She fought back to prevent his second marriage. She was attacked and landed in the Calcutta Medical College.”
BMMA
A third petition, titled ‘Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality’, was filed by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA). In court, BMMA argued that Allah says men and women are equal. “We have reproduced verses from the Quran about talaq, negotiations and how it should happen over a minimum period of 90 days. The second argument is about gender justice. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution of India about all citizens having equal rights.”
Gulshan Parween, Aafreen Rehman, and Atiya Sabri
Gulshan Parween and Aafreen Rehman are two other petitioners in the case. Ahead of the verdict, their lawyers said they were unable to contact the women but insisted that they would be present in court on the “big day”. Parween is from Rampur while Rehman is from Jaipur. Atiya Sabri, a resident of Saharanpur, is the last petitioner in the case.
Meanwhile, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board argued that court should not interfere in the practice of triple talaq as it’s a matter of faith. He had equated the issue to the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya to point out that matters of faith cannot be tested for constitutional morality. He had also said that as Muslims had been practicing triple talaq for at least 1,400 years, it cannot be termed un-Islamic.
Former Union minister Salman Khurshid, who was allowed by the court to assist it as amicus curiae, also contended that instant triple talaq “cannot be justified or given legal validity”. He argued that the practice “was sinful but legal”.