Classifieds | Archives | Jobs | About TGT | Contact | Subscribe
 | 
Last updated 0 minute ago
Printer Friendly Version | TGT@Twitter | RSS Feed |
HOME LOCAL MIDEAST ASIA WORLD BUSINESS SPORT OPINION WRITERS
Chintan Chandrachud: Unseemly haste on the triple talaq Bill raises eyebrows
January 03, 2018
 Print    Send to Friend

On December 28, the Lok Sabha passed the ‘triple talaq’ Bill — the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill — following a day of engaging discussion. It will soon be tabled in the Rajya Sabha. The legislation was mooted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s judgment in August declaring that the practice of instant triple talaq was not constitutionally protected and would have no legal effect.

At first glance, these developments come across as a classic example of collaboration the between the branches of government. The Supreme Court made a decision, the government conceptualised a Bill to reinforce the court’s decision, and Parliament is now in the process of enacting that Bill into law. However, this narrative collapses when the issue is considered more closely, as the Bill is at odds with the very judgment that it purports to reinforce.

The statement of objects and reasons accompanying the Bill indicates that it is meant to give effect to the court’s judgment, which it claims had failed to produce any deterrent effect in reducing the practice of triple talaq across the country.

The purpose of the court’s judgment was disarmingly simple: to deprive talaq-e-biddat of recognition in the eyes of the law. That remains the case irrespective of the frequency with which it is exercised. To speak of “illegal divorce”, as the statement does, is therefore a contradiction in terms – triple talaq is simply not a divorce in the first place.

The Bill then proceeds based on this mistaken premise. Although it confirms that pronouncements of triple talaq are void, it goes further by criminalising the utterance of triple talaq. A victim of triple talaq, the Bill says, is entitled to a subsistence allowance and custody of minor children. These provisions belong to a Bill that regulates divorce, not marriage. A victim of triple talaq remains married to her husband. As a wife (rather than an ex-wife), she should be entitled to far more than mere subsistence. The question of custody does not arise where the couple remains married.

The linchpin of the Bill is the criminalisation of triple talaq with a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years. This also undercuts one of the important effects of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Until the judgment, there was an asymmetry between the authority conferred upon the words of a Muslim man as opposed to a Muslim woman. By indicating that Muslim men lacked the power to divorce their wives through triple talaq, the Court diminished that asymmetry. This Bill accentuates it once again and puts men at the centre of legislative policy, by triggering a number of legal consequences upon the utterance of those words.

The alacrity and speed of Parliament’s response to the Supreme Court’s judgment is remarkable. One of the significant questions that arose before the Court was whether it would be appropriate to defer to Parliament on this issue. While the two judges in the minority favoured imposing a six-month injunction to enable Parliament to enact legislation on the subject, the judges in the majority specifically chose not to do so. As one of the judges in the majority noted, “it is not for the courts to direct” the enactment of any legislation.

Overall, the attempt to ride on the coattails of the Supreme Court’s judgment is misplaced. A further round of litigation seems inevitable if this Bill were to be enacted, and there is an even chance that the court may decide that a law criminalising the use of three words violates the right to equality under the Constitution. The moral of the story is not dissimilar to the 2G case. Not everything that is arbitrary or unlawful is, or in this case should be, criminal.

The Hindu

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments
 
Post a comment
 
Name:
Country:
City:
Email:
Comment:
 
    
    
Related Stories
Frank F. Islam: Development in the field of culture can’t be compromised
India has the third-largest higher educational system in the world. In 2016, there were 799 universities and 39,071 colleges spread across the country. These numbers are ..
Amitabh Pal: Haley’s tenure was no boon to Indian-Americans
I have mixed feelings about fellow Indian-American Nikki Haley’s announcement that she will be resigning as US ambassador to the United Nations. On the one hand, when ..
Shashank Bengali: A #MeToo moment for India
For two years the nun said nothing, quietly dreading the nights that the stocky, bearded Catholic bishop would spend at her small convent in the southern Indian hills. ..
Amit Kapoor: Unfair target of history wars
It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that history is a living reality in Indian society. Every day millions across the country begin their day with Bronze age chants..
Archana Sharma: Like a phoenix, Kriti rises from the ashes
Her struggle for survival began even before she was born. Her own family members wanted to kill her in her mother’s womb after her father abandoned them. Rajasthan-based ..
FRONTPAGE
 
GALLERY
 
PANORAMA
 
TIME OUT
 
SPORT
 
 
Advertise | Copyright