CJI agrees to reconstitute Constitution Bench to hear petitions challenging polygamy, nikah halala

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, November 24

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday agreed to reconstitute a Constitution Bench to hear petitions seeking to declare Islamic practices of polygamy and nikah halala unconstitutional.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Surya Kant, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had on August 30 issued notices to the Centre, National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities and others on nine petitions challenging the alleged discriminatory practices.

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay – one of the petitioners – on Thursday told a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud that a new Bench was needed to be set up as two of the judges on the Constitution Bench – Justice Banerjee and Justice Gupta – had retired.

"We will form a Bench,” the CJI told Upadhyay. 

Polygamy allows a Muslim man to have four wives while under 'nikah halala', a Muslim woman wanting to remarry her husband after divorce, has to first marry another man, get the marriage consummated and then get divorced by him.

In 2017, the top court had declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional, saying it went against the basic tenets of the holy Quran. It had, however, said petitions against polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ would be dealt with separately.

Filed by some Muslim women, NGOs and Upadhyay, the petitions challenging the validity of polygamy and nikah halala were referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench in March 2018.

"Muslim law in so far it permits to have more than one wife at a time is against the very spirit of the Constitution as it discriminates on the basis of gender and there is no valid reason for continuing polygamy or bigamy in the national interest," read a petition filed by a Lucknow-based NGO through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.

The petition challenged the validity of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, that recognised bigamy or polygamy among Muslims and sought reading down Section 494 of the IPC which allows such marriages among Muslims while making it punishable with seven-year jail term for members of other communities.

Upadhyay  wanted the top court to declare Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, unconstitutional  as the practice of triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 (right to equality, right to non-discrimination and right to live with human dignity) of the Constitution and went against public order, morality and health.

"It is well settled that Common Law has primacy over the Personal Laws. Hence, this Hon'ble Court may declare that -- triple talaq is cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC, 1860, nikah halala is rape under Section 375 of the IPC,1860, and polygamy is an offence under Section 494 of the IPC,1860," Upadhyay submitted.

Maintaining that Muslim Law is based on the Quran and the Hadith, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had earlier told the Supreme Court that it can’t be challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights as it’s not enacted by Parliament.

"The Mohammedan law is founded essentially on the holy Quran and the Hadith of Prophet Mohammed and thus it can't fall within purview of expression 'laws in force' as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution and hence its validity cannot be tested," AIMPLB had said in its application seeking to become a party to PILs challenging validity of Islamic practices of polygamy and 'nikah halala'.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#human rights #Justice DY Chandrachud #National Human Rights Commission