The newly minted Triple talaq law, which makes the pronouncement of instant triple divorce a criminal act punishable by a jail term of up to three years and a fine, has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019, which was passed by Parliament earlier this week and which received Presidential assent on Thursday, has been challenged on grounds of constitutional validity by the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, a religious organisation with bearings in Sunni beliefs.
The petition argues that the law fails the constitutional validity test as it violates the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It is contended that the law provides for penal action for instant triple talaq, making such a punishment exclusive to a particular community.
Also read
- Husband gives triple talaq to UP woman for praising Modi, Yogi Adityanath's work in Ayodhya
- Waqf should step in to provide maintenance to women and children: Shaista Ambar
- Triple talaqs have dipped after enactment of law against it: NCM
- Triple Talaq legally invalid, but that doesn't decriminalise the act: Delhi HC
The law, because of its discriminatory nature, can lead to polarisation and disharmony in the society, the petition contends. The petitioner has pleaded that the law be struck down, and that there should be a stay on the implementation of the Act in the meantime.
The triple talaq law, projected by the government as a pro-woman legislation aimed at correcting a “historic wrong” and providing Muslim women with justice, crossed the Rajya Sabha hurdle earlier this week. It has been described as a follow up step to the Supreme Court having banned the practice by holding it as unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights.
The law, however, has been criticised for criminalising instant triple talaq and providing for a jail term for the husband who pronounces immediate triple divorce on his wife. The counter-point is that action against the practice could have been provided for under civil law rather than taking recourse to criminal jurisprudence.