This story is part of
From suo motu to judgment: The arguments for and against triple talaq
SHOW MORE 29 STORIES

Triple talaq is Muslim woman vs man issue, not that of majority vs minority: Centre

“The men are strong, dominant, educated and probably the sole breadwinners, while the women are born to fear, weak and with no public employment. This is the battle between the haves and the have-nots within the Muslim community. The battle is intra-minority,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submits.

May 17, 2017 04:28 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 10:44 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A view of the Supreme Court of India.

A view of the Supreme Court of India.

The call to banish triple talaq should not be perceived as an attempt by the Hindu majority to “swamp or dominate” the Muslim minority, the National Democratic Alliance government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

In actuality, this is a cry by Muslim women for justice against the men of their own religion, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar.

“This is not a tussle between the majority and the minority of the country. The real tussle is between the Muslim men and women. Women have questioned centuries of hegemony they suffered at the hands of the men within the community... The men are strong, dominant, educated and probably the sole breadwinners, while the women born to fear, weak and with no public employment. This is the battle between the haves and the have-nots within the Muslim community. The battle is intra-minority,” he submitted.

Mr. Rohatgi was countering arguments led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) that triple talaq was a 1,400-year-old practice and neither the Supreme Court nor the government should dictate reform to Islam. Reform would come from within the community on its own terms.

Justice Khehar said that rather than the Supreme Court, the government should initiate legislation to drive the perceived hegemony away.

“I [Centre] will do what I have to do. Question is what will you do? The hallmark of a secular court is to start reform without waiting for legislation. Be the guardian of the rights of women and the weak. Protect their fundamental rights of dignity and equality. Even Article 25 [freedom of religion] is subject to fundamental rights,” Mr. Rohatgi responded.

If instant talaq is sinful, why is it essential to religion?

Justice Kurian Joseph intervened to point out that the Constitution also says to leave personal laws and customs alone.

“Yes, the Constitution says we will preserve your religion, whatever it is. But if there is a clash between your personal law practices and the fundamental rights of equality and dignity, your personal law practices should give way,” Mr. Rohatgi replied.

He said the court should look into the background of the making of the Constitution. Blood was shed in the name of religion during the Partition. The Constitution makers did not want a sequel. So, they kept the core part of every religion, but said this was subject to fundamental rights.

“It is truly a secular, pluralistic Constitution,” Mr. Rohatgi said. The court should not take on the mantle of an ecclesiastical forum. It should test triple talaq on the anvil of the Constitution rather than the Quran.

He countered arguments by Muslim bodies that triple talaq was essential to religion.

“How can something be sinful, undesirable, optional and at the same time integral to religion? The proof that triple talaq is not essential lies in the fact that Islam continues to thrive in many countries which had banished triple talaq,” he submitted.

Mr. Rohatgi submitted how Hinduism survives despite making practices like Sati, infanticide and Devadasis illegal.

At this point, Justice Khehar pointed out that these practices were given the death blow by legislation and not by courts.

Justice Rohinton Nariman referred to the government’s dare that it would bring in a new Muslim divorce law if the Supreme Court first struck down all three forms of triple talaq as unconstitutional.

“If we do that, ours doors are closed. Then the onus is on you to bring in law and frame rules,” Justice Nariman warned the government.

“I cannot answer for the government. I am speaking for the Government of India. My instruction is to tell you that the government is ready to bring in a new law,” Mr. Rohatgi said.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.