Supreme Court To Hear Batch Of Petitions Challenging Triple Talaq Law In November 2023

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 in November 2023.

When the matter came up before the Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh today, the petitioners requested one matter to be treated as the lead matter in which all pleadings could be completed.

Accordingly, the court ordered WPC No. 993/2019 Amir Rashadi Madni Vs Union of India to be treated as the lead petition and for all pleadings to be filed in the said matter.

The Apex Court vide its judgment dated August 22, 2017 in Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors., (2017)9 SCC 1, had declared the 'talaq-e-biddat' or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband, unconstitutional.

Pursuant to this ruling, the triple talaq law- Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 was passed by the Central government on July 31, 2019, criminalizing pronouncement of divorce in a such manner and prescribing a punishment of up to 3 years imprisonment for the same.

Challenging this legislation a batch of writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court.

The lead petition has been filed by politician and Islamic scholar, Amir Rashadi Madni.

The Petitioner has contested the constitutional validity of the Act and has submitted that it is "un-islamic" and is violative of Articles 13, 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The contentions raised in his Petition are enlisted below:

1. The Petitioner's founding argument was that talaq-e-biddat had already been declared invalid and unconstitutional by the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court and it had no sanctity in law. The verdict was binding on all courts of the country in view of Article 141 of the Constitution and thus a legislation criminalizing such talaq was unnecessary.

2. The Petitioner has further argued that the Act is contrary to the ethos of the Preamble of the Constitution viz. Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Individual Dignity and has the potential of suffocating the secular character of the Constitution.

3. He also submitted that since marriage in Islam is a civil contract, it may be terminated under certain circumstances, as held in Abdul Qadir v. Salima, (1886) 8 All 149. Therefore, imposition of a criminal liability for a civil wrong was in clear violation of Right to life with dignity and personal liberty of Muslim men.

4. It is also alleged that the Act offends the foundation of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as it is not based on intelligible differentia and threatens to violate the fundamental rights of a class of citizens. Reliance was placed on S. G. Jaisinghavi v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703.

5. The Petition also alleges violation of Article 15 of the Constitution as the Act discriminates against a class of persons on the basis of religion whereas as per the settled law, the applicability of criminal laws is religiously neutral.

6. The punishment prescribed by the Act was alleged to be excessive and disproportionate in as much as lesser punishments have been prescribed by the law makers for offences punishable under Section 147, 304A IPC etc., which are far graver offences.