Undue haste on triple talaq

FOR over a year, Parliament has been unable to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions to pass a law that outlaws instant talaq or triple talaq. With a day to go for Parliament to step into recess, the government seems unusually determined to get the law passed despite many of the fence-sitters now joining the doubters in questioning the Bill’s penal provisions. During the Lok Sabha debate, AIADMK and BJD wanted the Bill to be referred to a joint committee. And now JD (U), too, has said it will vote against the Bill because the issue requires wider consultation. The Bill seems to be taking the same trajectory as the Sabarimala issue.

In both cases, it is settled that personal law cannot be privileged over fundamental laws. But the State — the Centre in case of talaq-e-biddat and Kerala in the Sabarimala controversy — has consciously eschewed interlocution and mediation as if the purpose is not only to correct social wrongs, but also in the process put down a custom or an unequal tradition. The Centre has accommodated some of the reservations by making the offence compoundable (amicable settlement) and conditionally cognisable — only if the woman or her blood relations file a police complaint.

Aside from the fact that a marital wrong should not lead to prosecution and imprisonment, especially in view of the preponderance of women-first legislations, the logic does not add up. If the law declares instant triple talaq invalid, then the marriage is not dissolved. In that case, it is contradictory to punish a man for something that did not take place. The government says the need for an ordinance and then the haste in pushing through the Bill is because the practice has not stopped since the Supreme Court judgment in September 2017. That is too short a span of time to arrive at a conclusion, while the reasoning itself underlines the requirement for wide consultations with community leaders to ensure that a genuine stab at social reform does not fall prey to political one-upmanship.