
The Indian central government on Monday (August 19) claimed that 'triple talaq' was 'fatal' to the social institution of marriage as it defended its 2019 law criminalising the practice.
Responding to an affidavit challenging the law, the Union of India defended the law and said that while the nation's top court had set aside Triple Talaq (talaq-e-biddah) in 2017, it had "not worked as a sufficient deterrent in bringing down the number of divorces by this practice" among the members of the community.
It contended that the "Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the impugned Act to protect the rights of married Muslim women who are being divorced by triple talaq."
Furthermore, the Union government said in its affidavit that the act helps in ensuring "the larger constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and helps subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment."
Two Muslimorganisations, namely Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, have urged the Supreme Court of India to declare the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 as "unconstitutional".
In its petition, Jamiat claimed that the criminalisation of talaq-e-biddah was discriminatory.
"Criminalising a mode of divorce in one particular religion while keeping the subject of marriage and divorce in other religions only within the purview of civil law, leads to discrimination, which is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 15," it said.
It also contended that the punishment for the offence was unfair.
"Section 7 of the Impugned Act makes the pronouncement oftalaq (having the effect ofinstantaneous divorce) a cognisable and a nonbailable offence. It is submitted that even offences like Kidnapping (Section363 of IPC) which are far graver are bailable."
Under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, the practice of talaq-e-biddah or Triple Talaq, was made a penal offence punishable by a maximum sentence of up to three years of imprisonment.
Before that, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had in 2017 held the practice "void" and "unconstitutional".
(With inputs from agencies)