The Government argued that the practice is “detrimental” to the institution of marriage and emphasized that the law supports the constitutional goals of gender justice and equality for married Muslim women, ensuring their fundamental rights to non-discrimination and empowerment.
NEW DELHI: On Monday (19th Aug), the Central Government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its 2019 law that criminalized instant triple talaq. The Government argued that the Supreme Court that the practice of ‘triple talaq’ is “detrimental to the social institution of marriage” and leaves Muslim women in a “very pathetic” situation.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: Reassessing the Triple Talaq Law in Light of Rights and Constitutionality
The affidavit stated that victims of ‘triple talaq’ previously had no recourse but to approach the police, who were powerless without punitive provisions in the law. To address this, the government contended that strict legal measures were urgently needed.
In response to a petition claiming that the Supreme Court’s invalidation of ‘triple talaq’ made criminalization unnecessary, the government rejected this view. It argued that ‘triple talaq’ “violates fundamental rights and the right to equality guaranteed to women under the Constitution.”
The affidavit emphasized that Parliament enacted the law to safeguard the rights of married Muslim women affected by ‘triple talaq’ and that the law furthers constitutional goals of gender justice and equality.
The affidavit stated:
“Parliament, in its judgment, enacted the contested Act to safeguard the rights of married Muslim women affected by triple talaq. This Act advances broader constitutional objectives of gender justice and equality for married Muslim women, supporting their fundamental rights to non-discrimination and empowerment.”
The affidavit stated that Parliament enacted the law to protect the rights of married Muslim women affected by triple talaq. In 2017, the Constitution Bench in Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India ruled that triple talaq violated fundamental rights and equality, suggesting it should be punishable.
On August 22, 2017, the Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, and on August 23, 2019, it agreed to review the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The law prescribes imprisonment of up to three years for violations.
The Constitution bench comprised five judges – Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Abdul Nazeer. The key findings were:
- Justices Nariman, Lalit and Joseph held that triple talaq violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They deemed it manifestly arbitrary, violative of the basic tenets of the Quran, and lacking legal sanctity.
- In contrast, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer held triple talaq to be an integral part of religious practice under Article 25 and excluded it from constitutional review. However, they urged the government to bring legislation to regulate triple talaq.
- The minority view by CJI Khehar and Justice Nazeer emphasized the protection of personal laws under Article 25, arguing that triple talaq could not be tested against Articles 14, 15 and 21.
- The majority decision reflected a historic move towards reforming personal laws and enhancing constitutional rights for Muslim women in India. It set a landmark precedent for balancing religious freedom with gender justice.
Two Muslim organizations, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, have petitioned the court to declare the law “unconstitutional.” Jamiat argues that criminalizing divorce in one religion while keeping it under civil law in others leads to discrimination, which they believe is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution.
The government also noted that the Supreme Court has previously stated it should not question the wisdom of laws passed by Parliament.
“It is the legislature’s role to determine what is beneficial for the people and they must be given the broadest latitude to function within their powers. Determining whether certain conduct should be criminalized and the appropriate penalties is a legislative function that must reflect current social conditions,”
the affidavit concluded.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
