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

Triple talaq: Will SC verdict end personal laws’ immunity?

Court may settle an age-old debate

August 21, 2017 09:33 pm | Updated December 03, 2021 12:25 pm IST - New Delhi

New Delhi: A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi on Friday. Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju appeared at the court on Friday. PTI Photo by Atul Yadav(PTI11_11_2016_000229B)

New Delhi: A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi on Friday. Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju appeared at the court on Friday. PTI Photo by Atul Yadav(PTI11_11_2016_000229B)

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the constitutionality of triple talaq may also decide the age-old debate whether personal laws can be brought under the ambit of Article 13 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights) of the Constitution.

While the All India Muslim Personal Law Board ( AIMPLB) has argued that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to strike down provisions of personal law, organisations calling for reform and Muslim women from various walks of life across the country have urged the court to declare triple talaq and polygamy as “un-Islamic”.

This is the first time that aggrieved persons — individual Muslim women — themselves have approached the apex court in person to settle the law on whether religious law is immune from constitutional standards enshrined under fundamental rights.

Article 13 includes in its ambit any “ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification and even customs and usages” passed or made by the Legislature or any other “competent authority”. It mandates that any law in force in the country before or after the commencement of Constitution should not violate the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in Part III.

A judicial declaration from a Constitution Bench under Article 13 that personal laws are liable to comply with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution would bring religious law, even uncodified practices, under judicial review.

 

Discordant notes

In the past, courts have made discordant notes about the immunity enjoyed by personal laws.

In 1951, the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay versus Narasu Appa Mali held that personal law is not ‘law’ under Article 13. The judgment was never challenged in the Supreme Court.

In Ahmedabad Women Action Group versus Union of India , the Supreme Court was asked to consider that unilateral divorce by talaq and polygamy violated Articles 14 and 15.

The court rejected the claim, saying it was for the legislature to determine. Whether this Constitution Bench will resolve the age-old dispute or leave it to the legislature to decide is to be seen.

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.