Triple talaq right, or wrong?

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 30

The Supreme Court today fixed May 11 (during summer vacation) to commence the Constitution Bench hearing on petitions challenging triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy among Muslims.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar said if needed, the hearing could continue even on Saturday and Sunday falling after May 11 and 12.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

The CJI asked the parties that have not filed written submissions to do so in two weeks.

Two other Constitution Benches on issues relating to citizenship of children of illegal Bangladeshi migrants and alleged privacy violation by WhatsApp will also sit during the summer vacation, besides the one that generally hears urgent matters.

The top court, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala, has already made it clear that it would not look into Uniform Civil Code which is currently being examined by the Law Commission of India.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had on March 27 defended the practices, saying the Supreme Court cannot consider the constitutional validity of the principles of Muslim personal law.

The board said these issues were matters to be dealt with by the legislature. On triple talaq, it said: “Once three pronouncements of divorce are made, the marriage dissolves and the woman becomes unlawful to the man who had pronounced divorce.”

Defending polygamy, it said: “Polygamy meets social and moral needs and the provision for it stems from concern for women. The policy of Islam is to discourage polygamy, but not to prohibit it. Islam encourages monogamy, but does not make it mandatory.”

The Centre had on February 16 asked the SC to decide if these practices were protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution that guaranteed fundamental right to religion to citizens.

It had also asked the top court to consider if fundamental rights, particularly right to equality and right to live with human dignity, were superior to right to religion.