<p>A special CBI court here Thursday discharged former police officers DG Vanzara and NK Amin from the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court allowed the discharge applications of Vanzara and Amin, which they had filed after the Gujarat government refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute them.</p>

<p>Special CBI court judge J K Pandya said that since the government did not sanction their prosecution, their discharge applications were allowed and proceedings against them would be dropped in the case.</p>

<p>Under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the government's sanction is necessary for the prosecution of a public servant for an act done as part of the official duty.</p>

<p>Ishrat, a 19-year-old from Mumbra near Mumbai, Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed by the Gujarat Police in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004.</p>

<p>The police claimed they were terrorists and planning to kill the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While the CBI had refused to take any stand on the state government's decision to decline sanction to prosecute the two former police officers, mother of Ishrat Jahan, Shamima Kauser, had opposed their applications.</p>

<p>In a submission made through her lawyer Vrinda Grover, Kauser had earlier said that their pleas seeking dropping of proceedings were "untenable in law and unsustainable on facts" and that the state government was "not the appropriate authority" to refuse sanction to prosecute the two officers.</p>

<p>"It is a matter of record that it is the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and not the state of Gujarat, which is the appropriate sanctioning authority in the present case, she had said.</p>

<p>Vanzara's lawyer V D Gajjar had defended the pleas seeking dropping of proceedings, saying the court cannot determine the validity of the sanction order and any review was not possible.</p>

<p>He had said that judicial findings in the case had established that there was no "fake encounter" on the part of the police officers.</p>

<p>Gajjar had said the sanction for prosecution was declined after the state government went through the material on record, examined fully the facts and circumstances of the case.</p>

<p>On August 7, 2018, the court had rejected the discharge applications of Vanzara and Amin, and also sought to know from the CBI whether the agency had requested the government for a sanction to prosecute them, so that the court could frame charges against them and start the trial.</p>

<p>A Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Gujarat High Court had later concluded that the encounter was fake, after which the HC had transferred the case to the CBI.</p>

<p>In the first charge-sheet filed by the investigative agency in 2013, seven Gujarat police officers, including IPS officers P P Pandey, Vanzara and G L Singhal, were named as accused. The court had later discharged Pandey.&nbsp;</p>


A special CBI court here Thursday discharged former police officers DG Vanzara and NK Amin from the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case. The court allowed the discharge applications of Vanzara and Amin, which they had filed after the Gujarat government refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute them.

A special CBI court here Thursday discharged former police officers DG Vanzara and NK Amin from the Ishrat Jahan alleged fake encounter case. The court allowed the discharge applications of Vanzara and Amin, which they had filed after the Gujarat government refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute them. Special CBI court judge J K Pandya said that since the government did not sanction their prosecution, their discharge applications were allowed and proceedings against them would be dropped in the case. Under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the government's sanction is necessary for the prosecution of a public servant for an act done as part of the official duty. Ishrat, a 19-year-old from Mumbra near Mumbai, Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed by the Gujarat Police in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004. The police claimed they were terrorists and planning to kill the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. While the CBI had refused to take any stand on the state government's decision to decline sanction to prosecute the two former police officers, mother of Ishrat Jahan, Shamima Kauser, had opposed their applications. In a submission made through her lawyer Vrinda Grover, Kauser had earlier said that their pleas seeking dropping of proceedings were "untenable in law and unsustainable on facts" and that the state government was "not the appropriate authority" to refuse sanction to prosecute the two officers. "It is a matter of record that it is the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and not the state of Gujarat, which is the appropriate sanctioning authority in the present case, she had said. Vanzara's lawyer V D Gajjar had defended the pleas seeking dropping of proceedings, saying the court cannot determine the validity of the sanction order and any review was not possible. He had said that judicial findings in the case had established that there was no "fake encounter" on the part of the police officers. Gajjar had said the sanction for prosecution was declined after the state government went through the material on record, examined fully the facts and circumstances of the case. On August 7, 2018, the court had rejected the discharge applications of Vanzara and Amin, and also sought to know from the CBI whether the agency had requested the government for a sanction to prosecute them, so that the court could frame charges against them and start the trial. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Gujarat High Court had later concluded that the encounter was fake, after which the HC had transferred the case to the CBI. In the first charge-sheet filed by the investigative agency in 2013, seven Gujarat police officers, including IPS officers P P Pandey, Vanzara and G L Singhal, were named as accused. The court had later discharged Pandey.

Former cops Vanzara, Amin discharged from Ishrat Jahan case

<p>A court here Wednesday directed Indian pacer Mohammed Shami to appear before it on January 15 in connection with a complaint of cheque bounce filed by his wife, with whom he is embroiled in a marital dispute case.</p>

<p>Alipore Judicial Magistrate Md Zafar Parwej, in-charge of the chief judicial magistrate court on this day, said that failure to appear personally may invite a warrant of arrest against Shami.</p>

<p>His wife Hasin Jahan filed the case under NI Act after the cricketer had allegedly stopped payment of a cheque which he had given to her for monthly expenses after a marital dispute arose between the two, following which they were residing separately.</p>

<p>The CJM had directed Shami to appear before the court on Wednesday after he had failed to appear on an earlier date in October.</p>

<p>But the cricketer was not present in the court on Wednesday too.</p>

<p>His lawyer Sk Salim Rahaman pleaded before judge Parwej that Shami be allowed to appear through the counsel.</p>

<p>The judge, however, said that the law was the same for everyone and directed Shami to appear personally on January 15, 2019.</p>

<p>The court said that failure on the part of Shami to appear before the court on the said date may invite issuance of arrest warrant against him.</p>


A court here Wednesday directed Indian pacer Mohammed Shami to appear before it on January 15 in connection with a complaint of cheque bounce filed by his wife, with whom he is embroiled in a marital dispute case.

A court here Wednesday directed Indian pacer Mohammed Shami to appear before it on January 15 in connection with a complaint of cheque bounce filed by his wife, with whom he is embroiled in a marital dispute case. Alipore Judicial Magistrate Md Zafar Parwej, in-charge of the chief judicial magistrate court on this day, said that failure to appear personally may invite a warrant of arrest against Shami. His wife Hasin Jahan filed the case under NI Act after the cricketer had allegedly stopped payment of a cheque which he had given to her for monthly expenses after a marital dispute arose between the two, following which they were residing separately. The CJM had directed Shami to appear before the court on Wednesday after he had failed to appear on an earlier date in October. But the cricketer was not present in the court on Wednesday too. His lawyer Sk Salim Rahaman pleaded before judge Parwej that Shami be allowed to appear through the counsel. The judge, however, said that the law was the same for everyone and directed Shami to appear personally on January 15, 2019. The court said that failure on the part of Shami to appear before the court on the said date may invite issuance of arrest warrant against him.

Cheque bounce case: Cricketer Mohammed Shami summoned by Kolkata court

<p>Former Gujarat police officer N K Amin, an accused in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, on Saturday told a CBI court in Ahmedabad that there was a "conspiracy" to prove that the encounter was fake.</p>

<p>Arguing in person over his discharge application before special CBI judge J K Pandya, Amin said the FIR against him was "fabricated, biased and based on false facts".</p>

<p>Amin, accused in the charge sheet of firing five rounds from his gun at Ishrat Jahan and three others on June 14, 2004, claimed that IPS officer Satish Verma, a former investigator in the case, was also behind the conspiracy.</p>

<p>Verma was part of the conspiracy hatched at the behest of "the political party then in power" as he (Verma) allowed I K Chauhan, a former accused in the case, to turn a prosecution witness and depose against Amin despite knowing that he was stating blatant lies, Amin said.</p>

<p>Chauhan was a police inspector with the Ahmedabad crime branch at the time of the alleged fake encounter.</p>

<p>Amin and retired IPS officer D G Vanzara, both on bail, in this case, have filed applications for discharge.</p>

<p>The CBI has opposed their pleas, saying it has sufficient evidence against them.</p>

<p>The court recently discharged former Gujarat DGP P P Pandey in the case.</p>

<p>Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old college girl from Mumbra near Mumbai, her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh, Amzad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed in an alleged fake encounter by the Ahmedabad police on the outskirts of the city in June 2004.</p>

<p>The police had then claimed that they were terrorists affiliated to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba.</p>

<p>The first charge sheet filed by the CBI named seven Gujarat policemen -- Amin, Tarun Barot, P P Pandey, Vanzara, J G Parmar, K M Vaghela, and G L Singhal -- for carrying out a fake encounter.&nbsp</p>


Former Gujarat police officer N K Amin, an accused in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, on Saturday told a CBI court in Ahmedabad that there was a 'conspiracy' to prove that the encounter was fake

Former Gujarat police officer N K Amin, an accused in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, on Saturday told a CBI court in Ahmedabad that there was a "conspiracy" to prove that the encounter was fake. Arguing in person over his discharge application before special CBI judge J K Pandya, Amin said the FIR against him was "fabricated, biased and based on false facts". Amin, accused in the charge sheet of firing five rounds from his gun at Ishrat Jahan and three others on June 14, 2004, claimed that IPS officer Satish Verma, a former investigator in the case, was also behind the conspiracy. Verma was part of the conspiracy hatched at the behest of "the political party then in power" as he (Verma) allowed I K Chauhan, a former accused in the case, to turn a prosecution witness and depose against Amin despite knowing that he was stating blatant lies, Amin said. Chauhan was a police inspector with the Ahmedabad crime branch at the time of the alleged fake encounter. Amin and retired IPS officer D G Vanzara, both on bail, in this case, have filed applications for discharge. The CBI has opposed their pleas, saying it has sufficient evidence against them. The court recently discharged former Gujarat DGP P P Pandey in the case. Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old college girl from Mumbra near Mumbai, her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh, Amzad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed in an alleged fake encounter by the Ahmedabad police on the outskirts of the city in June 2004. The police had then claimed that they were terrorists affiliated to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. The first charge sheet filed by the CBI named seven Gujarat policemen -- Amin, Tarun Barot, P P Pandey, Vanzara, J G Parmar, K M Vaghela, and G L Singhal -- for carrying out a fake encounter.

'Conspiracy' to prove Ishrat encounter was fake: Ex-cop Amin

<p>Days after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ishrat-jahan-triple-talaq-petitioner-joins-bjp-28214" target="_blank">Ishrat Jahan, one of the petitioners in the triple talaq case, joined the BJP</a>, her lawyer&nbsp;Nazia Elahi Khan also joined the party.</p>

<p>Nazia Elahi Khan is an activist and lawyer of triple talaq victim Ishrat Jahan.</p>

<p>He joined the BJP in Kolkata.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Nazia Elahi Khan, activist and lawyer of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TripleTalaq</a> victim Ishrat Jehan also joins BJP in Kolkata. Ishrat Jehan had already joined BJP <a href="https://t.co/cSmnCHnsM2">pic.twitter.com/cSmnCHnsM2</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/948886434433310721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Ishrat&nbsp;was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case.</p>

<p>She said she would work in the party&#39;s women&#39;s wing.</p>

<p>She joined the BJP on December 30&nbsp;at Howrah office on December 30.</p>

<p>Her husband had divorced her over the phone from Dubai in 2014 by uttering &quot;talaq&quot; thrice.</p>

<p>The Islamic practice of Triple Talaq was struck down by the Supreme Court on August 22.</p>


Nazia Elahi Khan is an activist and lawyer of Triple Talaq victim Ishrat Jahan victim, he joined the BJP in Kolkata

Days after Ishrat Jahan, one of the petitioners in the triple talaq case, joined the BJP, her lawyer Nazia Elahi Khan also joined the party. Nazia Elahi Khan is an activist and lawyer of triple talaq victim Ishrat Jahan. He joined the BJP in Kolkata. Nazia Elahi Khan, activist and lawyer of #TripleTalaq victim Ishrat Jehan also joins BJP in Kolkata. Ishrat Jehan had already joined BJP pic.twitter.com/cSmnCHnsM2 — ANI (@ANI) January 4, 2018 × Ishrat was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case. She said she would work in the party's women's wing. She joined the BJP on December 30 at Howrah office on December 30. Her husband had divorced her over the phone from Dubai in 2014 by uttering "talaq" thrice. The Islamic practice of Triple Talaq was struck down by the Supreme Court on August 22.

Triple talaq: After Ishrat Jahan, her lawyer joins BJP

<p>Ishrat Jahan, one of the petitioners in the triple talaq case, has joined the BJP, the party announced on Sunday.</p>

<p>Ishrat, who was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case, said she would work in the party&#39;s women&#39;s wing.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Modi<em>ji</em> made a revolutionary law in the interest of victims, I was very happy. I will work in the party&#39;s women wing,&quot;&nbsp;Ishrat Jahan&nbsp;said.</p>

<p>Ishrat&nbsp;joined the BJP on December 30.</p>

<p>The Islamic practice of Triple Talaq was struck down by the Supreme Court on August 22.</p>

<p>&quot;Ishrat Jahan joined the BJP at our Howrah office yesterday (December 30),&quot; the party&#39;s state unit general secretary Sayantan Basu told PTI.</p>

<p>Sources told PTI Ishrat was felicitated by the Howrah BJP unit on December 30 and inducted into the party.</p>

<p>West Bengal BJP chief Dilip Ghosh, who is touring various districts in the state, also said he had also come to know from party sources that Ishrat had joined the BJP in Howrah.</p>

<p>Ishrat&#39;s husband had divorced her over the phone from Dubai in 2014 by uttering &quot;talaq&quot; thrice.</p>

<p>A state-level programme to felicitate her was yet to be organised, Sayantan Basu said.</p>

<p>Repeated calls to Ishrat for a reaction went unanswered.<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Ishrat, who was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case, joined the BJP on December 30

Ishrat Jahan, one of the petitioners in the triple talaq case, has joined the BJP, the party announced on Sunday. Ishrat, who was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case, said she would work in the party's women's wing. "Modiji made a revolutionary law in the interest of victims, I was very happy. I will work in the party's women wing," Ishrat Jahan said. Ishrat joined the BJP on December 30. The Islamic practice of Triple Talaq was struck down by the Supreme Court on August 22. "Ishrat Jahan joined the BJP at our Howrah office yesterday (December 30)," the party's state unit general secretary Sayantan Basu told PTI. Sources told PTI Ishrat was felicitated by the Howrah BJP unit on December 30 and inducted into the party. West Bengal BJP chief Dilip Ghosh, who is touring various districts in the state, also said he had also come to know from party sources that Ishrat had joined the BJP in Howrah. Ishrat's husband had divorced her over the phone from Dubai in 2014 by uttering "talaq" thrice. A state-level programme to felicitate her was yet to be organised, Sayantan Basu said. Repeated calls to Ishrat for a reaction went unanswered.

Triple talaq petitioner Ishrat Jahan joins BJP, says will work in women's wing

<p>Ishrat Jahan, the woman who filed a petition to put an end to instant triple talaq in India is now facing public wrath.</p>

<p>With Supreme Court of India deeming triple talaq unconstitutional, her ordeals have magnified. She is now battling social boycott and is being insinuated for her work by her in-laws and neighbours in her hometown,&nbsp;Howrah&#39;s Pilkhana. There is now a smear campaign running against her.&nbsp;</p>

<h2>Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-pronounce-verdict-on-triple-talaq-today-19286">Triple talaq verdict, Supreme Court rules practice is illegal</a></h2>

<p>As reported by Times of India, she said, &quot;Ever since the Supreme Court verdict has come in it has opened floodgates of expletives, insulting remarks and comments targeted at my character assassination from my neighbours and in-laws. I have to hear words like gandi aurat (bad woman), enemy of men and unislamic. Many neighbours have even stopped speaking to me.&quot;</p>

<p>She added,&nbsp;&quot;I am shocked, sad and I feel unsafe staying in this house. After such a long battle I don&#39;t have any strength left to fight these people. I want to focus on my four children now.&quot;</p>

<p>Ishrat who had filed the petition had been divorced by her husband in 2014 over the phone from Dubai. She was <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-verdict-what-it-took-for-the-five-women-petitioners-19326">one of the five petitioners</a> whose plea&nbsp;to the apex court prompted the instant triple talaq verdict.</p>

<p>Ishrat stays in&nbsp;Howrah&#39;s Pilkhana near Dobson Road. She has been staying in the house since 2004. It&#39;s the same house that her husband had purchased from the dowry she had brought at the time of their marriage. Her husband&#39;s elder brother and his family also live in the same house.</p>

<h2>Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-and-its-bollywood-connection-19331">Nikaah, Meena Kumari &amp; the triple talaq connection</a></h2>

<p>Sadly, even&nbsp;Ishrat&#39;s lawyer Nazia Ilahi Khan is being trolled online for fighting the case.</p>

<p>Ishrat feels that the ruling has done more bad to her than good. She said,&nbsp;&quot;Mere judgement by a court will not change the society. It will change the attitude of the people. In my case, they have become even more hostile mocking and ridiculing me. The change has to come from within the community. When people decide that they are going to help a vulnerable and helpless woman instead of her character assassination, no woman will suffer my fate.</p>

<p>&quot;My children have been out of school for the past four years since I did not have the money to afford their education. I am going to file a case seeking maintenance and expenses for my children&#39;s education. This is the birth right of my children.&quot;</p>

<p>(WION)</p>


She feels the Supreme Court ruling has done more bad to her

Ishrat Jahan, the woman who filed a petition to put an end to instant triple talaq in India is now facing public wrath. With Supreme Court of India deeming triple talaq unconstitutional, her ordeals have magnified. She is now battling social boycott and is being insinuated for her work by her in-laws and neighbours in her hometown, Howrah's Pilkhana. There is now a smear campaign running against her. Also Read: Triple talaq verdict, Supreme Court rules practice is illegal As reported by Times of India, she said, "Ever since the Supreme Court verdict has come in it has opened floodgates of expletives, insulting remarks and comments targeted at my character assassination from my neighbours and in-laws. I have to hear words like gandi aurat (bad woman), enemy of men and unislamic. Many neighbours have even stopped speaking to me." She added, "I am shocked, sad and I feel unsafe staying in this house. After such a long battle I don't have any strength left to fight these people. I want to focus on my four children now." Ishrat who had filed the petition had been divorced by her husband in 2014 over the phone from Dubai. She was one of the five petitioners whose plea to the apex court prompted the instant triple talaq verdict. Ishrat stays in Howrah's Pilkhana near Dobson Road. She has been staying in the house since 2004. It's the same house that her husband had purchased from the dowry she had brought at the time of their marriage. Her husband's elder brother and his family also live in the same house. Also Read: Nikaah, Meena Kumari & the triple talaq connection Sadly, even Ishrat's lawyer Nazia Ilahi Khan is being trolled online for fighting the case. Ishrat feels that the ruling has done more bad to her than good. She said, "Mere judgement by a court will not change the society. It will change the attitude of the people. In my case, they have become even more hostile mocking and ridiculing me. The change has to come from within the community. When people decide that they are going to help a vulnerable and helpless woman instead of her character assassination, no woman will suffer my fate. "My children have been out of school for the past four years since I did not have the money to afford their education. I am going to file a case seeking maintenance and expenses for my children's education. This is the birth right of my children." (WION)

Triple talaq petitioner Ishrat Jahan faces social boycott, character assassination

<p>The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India on triple talaq is a progressive step towards building a more egalitarian, fair and gender just India. The majority verdict has termed the instant triple talaq ((talaq-e- biddat or heretical and irregular mode of divorce) void ab initio (illegal at the outset) while describing the practice as &lsquo;manifestly arbitrary&rsquo;. The majority view also unequivocally declared that the instant triple talaq went against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and violated the Islamic law or the Shariat. The minority verdict had asked the government to frame a law within six months on the instant triple talaq. It also issued an instant injunction on such&nbsp;practice for the next six months till the new legislation is enacted along. However, the Supreme Court has issued a caveat that failing such a law, the injunction would cease to operate.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The practice of instant triple talaq has been generally followed by the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in India, which forms a substantial majority of the Indian Muslims (about 90 per cent of the Sunni Muslims in India according to the Court judgment). Those who claim to be outside the four main schools of Sunni Islam, like the Shia Muslims and the followers of the Ahl-i-Hadith tradition do not follow the practice of instant triple talaq. In this respect, the Supreme Court judgment, citing the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which banned instant triple talaq (Pakistan in 1961 and Bangladesh amending the 1961 Ordinance in 1985) while an overwhelming majority in these countries following the Sunni Hanafi School is extremely significant.</p>

<p>The Court judgment has rightly pointed out that the practice of divorce through &lsquo;talaq-e-biddat&rsquo; was &lsquo;prevalent in states having sizeable Muslim populations&rsquo;, but it has been &lsquo;statutorily done away with...by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States&rsquo;,&nbsp;including Turkey, Egypt, and Afghanistan where the majority of the Muslims follow the Sunni Hanafi school.</p>

<p>This particular judgment has long term implications for further reforms of several patriarchal aspects of the Muslim Personal Law. For instance, in matters of alimony for divorced Muslim women, polygamy, methods of remarriage (nikah halala) and inheritance. While in many Muslim countries, such a horrible practice has been banned long ago, the Indian Muslims had to wait for so many decades and that too after a judicial intervention to outlaw this inhumane practice of instant triple talaq, legitimised by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937.&nbsp;</p>

<p>From the 1920s to 1970s, a significant part of the Muslim world was governed by progressive and secular forces until they were challenged by the rise of Islamism in the last four decades. By contrast, in India, the progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims. Before the partition, barring few exceptions, progressive political articulation was never dominant among Indian Muslims. The partition led to further dwindling of the prominent progressive voices among the Muslim community as some emigrated out of India. Although,&nbsp;Indian Muslims never had a dominant progressive political articulation within the community throughout India&rsquo;s postcolonial history, yet they have largely favoured secular political formations while distancing from the communal political forces of both majoritarian and minority variety.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The absence of a progressive political leadership among Muslims in India has created conditions in which the theo-political identity of Indian Muslims has been foregrounded at the cost of class issues (education, health, employment) and citizenship identities by the conservative section of the Muslim community. This conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims, who might diligently follow Islam but are not vocal enough to protest against the misuse and misinterpretation of the Islamic religion by the conservatives on many occasions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Although one can notice a crisis of progressive political articulation among the Muslims in India, it is certainly not absent from the Muslim community. In the past, there were progressive voices who protested against the injustices of Shah Bano and today, one can see the activism of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Bebaak Collective, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Sahiyar, Muslim Mahila Manch, Pehchan, Muhim, Parvaaz Sangathan etc who joined the cause of the five Muslim women petitioners&mdash;Shayara Bano, Gulshan Parveen, Ishrat Jahan, Afreen Rahman and Farha Faiz in this case against instant triple talaq. These groups are run by Muslim women and have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The political implication of this judgment is too obvious. No matter how many normative appeals are being made for not politicising the Court&#39;s judgment, the fact of the matter is that it could be a talking point of a pragmatic and calculated political campaign of the BJP in future elections. Already, the BJP spokespersons are reminding about the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government&rsquo;s capitulation before the conservative Muslim leaders in the Shah Bano case, regarding alimony for divorced Muslim women during 1985-86, in contrast to their public support to this issue along with the BJP led central government&rsquo;s supporting affidavit in the case against triple talaq.</p>

<p>Although the BJP can certainly celebrate this judgment, the track record of the RSS (BJP&rsquo;s ideological mentor) and the Hindu Mahasabha is abysmal as far as the Personal Law reforms in the form of the Hindu Code Bill is concerned. Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha along with some major Congress leaders vehemently opposed the Hindu Code Bill. The present judgment has clearly denied an indisputable provision to bring in a law on Muslim personal matters while setting aside the triple talaq issue from the rest of the Muslim Personal Law. But this historic judgment has definitely created conditions for further reforms of the Personal Laws for both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the country.</p>

<p>If a radical initiative for Personal Law reforms or uniform civil code is being made in the future then, it must be preceded by democratic forms of wider public debates, followed by referendum among each major religious community in the country. Neither the All India Muslim Personal Law Board nor the Sangh Parivar represents the Muslims and Hindus respectively. If laws are meant to govern the lives of the citizens then the citizens must decide how they should be governed. &nbsp;</p>


After independence, progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims.

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India on triple talaq is a progressive step towards building a more egalitarian, fair and gender just India. The majority verdict has termed the instant triple talaq ((talaq-e- biddat or heretical and irregular mode of divorce) void ab initio (illegal at the outset) while describing the practice as ‘manifestly arbitrary’. The majority view also unequivocally declared that the instant triple talaq went against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and violated the Islamic law or the Shariat. The minority verdict had asked the government to frame a law within six months on the instant triple talaq. It also issued an instant injunction on such practice for the next six months till the new legislation is enacted along. However, the Supreme Court has issued a caveat that failing such a law, the injunction would cease to operate. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have banned instant triple talaq. × The practice of instant triple talaq has been generally followed by the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam in India, which forms a substantial majority of the Indian Muslims (about 90 per cent of the Sunni Muslims in India according to the Court judgment). Those who claim to be outside the four main schools of Sunni Islam, like the Shia Muslims and the followers of the Ahl-i-Hadith tradition do not follow the practice of instant triple talaq. In this respect, the Supreme Court judgment, citing the cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which banned instant triple talaq (Pakistan in 1961 and Bangladesh amending the 1961 Ordinance in 1985) while an overwhelming majority in these countries following the Sunni Hanafi School is extremely significant. The Court judgment has rightly pointed out that the practice of divorce through ‘talaq-e-biddat’ was ‘prevalent in states having sizeable Muslim populations’, but it has been ‘statutorily done away with...by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States’, including Turkey, Egypt, and Afghanistan where the majority of the Muslims follow the Sunni Hanafi school. This particular judgment has long term implications for further reforms of several patriarchal aspects of the Muslim Personal Law. For instance, in matters of alimony for divorced Muslim women, polygamy, methods of remarriage (nikah halala) and inheritance. While in many Muslim countries, such a horrible practice has been banned long ago, the Indian Muslims had to wait for so many decades and that too after a judicial intervention to outlaw this inhumane practice of instant triple talaq, legitimised by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. From the 1920s to 1970s, a significant part of the Muslim world was governed by progressive and secular forces until they were challenged by the rise of Islamism in the last four decades. By contrast, in India, the progressive-secular discourses were never a dominant political discourse among Indian Muslims. Before the partition, barring few exceptions, progressive political articulation was never dominant among Indian Muslims. The partition led to further dwindling of the prominent progressive voices among the Muslim community as some emigrated out of India. Although, Indian Muslims never had a dominant progressive political articulation within the community throughout India’s postcolonial history, yet they have largely favoured secular political formations while distancing from the communal political forces of both majoritarian and minority variety. Conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims × The absence of a progressive political leadership among Muslims in India has created conditions in which the theo-political identity of Indian Muslims has been foregrounded at the cost of class issues (education, health, employment) and citizenship identities by the conservative section of the Muslim community. This conservative section among the Indian Muslims has actually taken advantage of the silence of the silent majority of moderate Muslims, who might diligently follow Islam but are not vocal enough to protest against the misuse and misinterpretation of the Islamic religion by the conservatives on many occasions. Although one can notice a crisis of progressive political articulation among the Muslims in India, it is certainly not absent from the Muslim community. In the past, there were progressive voices who protested against the injustices of Shah Bano and today, one can see the activism of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Bebaak Collective, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Sahiyar, Muslim Mahila Manch, Pehchan, Muhim, Parvaaz Sangathan etc who joined the cause of the five Muslim women petitioners—Shayara Bano, Gulshan Parveen, Ishrat Jahan, Afreen Rahman and Farha Faiz in this case against instant triple talaq. These groups are run by Muslim women and have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades. Groups run by Muslim women have been involved in numerous struggles for dignity, gender justice and gender equality in the last three decades. × The political implication of this judgment is too obvious. No matter how many normative appeals are being made for not politicising the Court's judgment, the fact of the matter is that it could be a talking point of a pragmatic and calculated political campaign of the BJP in future elections. Already, the BJP spokespersons are reminding about the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government’s capitulation before the conservative Muslim leaders in the Shah Bano case, regarding alimony for divorced Muslim women during 1985-86, in contrast to their public support to this issue along with the BJP led central government’s supporting affidavit in the case against triple talaq. Although the BJP can certainly celebrate this judgment, the track record of the RSS (BJP’s ideological mentor) and the Hindu Mahasabha is abysmal as far as the Personal Law reforms in the form of the Hindu Code Bill is concerned. Both the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha along with some major Congress leaders vehemently opposed the Hindu Code Bill. The present judgment has clearly denied an indisputable provision to bring in a law on Muslim personal matters while setting aside the triple talaq issue from the rest of the Muslim Personal Law. But this historic judgment has definitely created conditions for further reforms of the Personal Laws for both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of the country. If a radical initiative for Personal Law reforms or uniform civil code is being made in the future then, it must be preceded by democratic forms of wider public debates, followed by referendum among each major religious community in the country. Neither the All India Muslim Personal Law Board nor the Sangh Parivar represents the Muslims and Hindus respectively. If laws are meant to govern the lives of the citizens then the citizens must decide how they should be governed.

Why Indian Muslims had to wait so many decades for the ban on triple talaq

<p>The Supreme Court verdict banning the practice of triple talaq in India is a landmark victory for Muslim women who had long argued that it violates their right to equality.</p>

<p>Triple talaq allows Muslim men to divorce their wives simply by uttering the word &quot;talaq&quot; three times. Muslim women say they have been left destitute by husbands divorcing them through &quot;triple talaq&quot;, including by Skype and WhatsApp.</p>

<p>A look at the journey of the five petitioners who challenged triple talaq. Their marriage has been restored after the milestone judgement.</p>

<p><strong>Shayara Bano: </strong>The main plea in the case was filed by 36-year-old Shayara Bano, who was divorced by her husband of 15 years through a talaqnama (written letter) with the word &quot;talaq&quot; written thrice.</p>

<p>&quot;Finally, I feel free today,&quot; she said after the ruling. &quot;&quot;I have the order that will liberate many Muslim women.&quot;</p>

<p>Shayara, who is suffering from multiple ailments, accuses her in-laws of forcing her to have six abortions and says she suffered from immense physical and mental stress.</p>

<p><strong>Ishrat Jahan:</strong> Married for 15 years, Ishrat was left in the lurch after her husband uttered &quot;talaq, talaq, talaq&quot; over the phone from Dubai after a fight. Ishrat, 36, alleges her husband came back to the village, remarried and took her two children to Dubai. Her husband has not sent her money for three years and Ishrat was supported by her extended family.</p>

<p><strong>Gulshan Parveen:</strong> The postgraduate in English Literature from Uttar Pradesh refused to accept the talaqnama notice sent by her husband while at her parents&#39; home. Her husband approached the family court asking for the<br />
dissolution of marriage, leaving her homeless with her two-year-old son. The Supreme Court clubbed her petition with the others. Married in 2013, she accused her husband of dowry harassment and criminal intimidation following which he was also arrested.</p>

<p><strong>Aafreen Rehman: </strong>The 26-year-old petitioned the Supreme Court after she was divorced through speed post. She has accused her in-laws of mentally harrassing her and demanding dowry within a few months of marriage<br />
in 2014.</p>

<p><strong>Atiya Sabri:</strong> Married in 2012, Atiya is the last petitioner in the case and was divorced on a piece of paper, allegedly because she had two daughters and no son.</p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


A look at the journey of the five petitioners in the case. Their marriage has been restored after the milestone judgement.

The Supreme Court verdict banning the practice of triple talaq in India is a landmark victory for Muslim women who had long argued that it violates their right to equality. Triple talaq allows Muslim men to divorce their wives simply by uttering the word "talaq" three times. Muslim women say they have been left destitute by husbands divorcing them through "triple talaq", including by Skype and WhatsApp. A look at the journey of the five petitioners who challenged triple talaq. Their marriage has been restored after the milestone judgement. Shayara Bano: The main plea in the case was filed by 36-year-old Shayara Bano, who was divorced by her husband of 15 years through a talaqnama (written letter) with the word "talaq" written thrice. "Finally, I feel free today," she said after the ruling. ""I have the order that will liberate many Muslim women." Shayara, who is suffering from multiple ailments, accuses her in-laws of forcing her to have six abortions and says she suffered from immense physical and mental stress. Ishrat Jahan: Married for 15 years, Ishrat was left in the lurch after her husband uttered "talaq, talaq, talaq" over the phone from Dubai after a fight. Ishrat, 36, alleges her husband came back to the village, remarried and took her two children to Dubai. Her husband has not sent her money for three years and Ishrat was supported by her extended family. Gulshan Parveen: The postgraduate in English Literature from Uttar Pradesh refused to accept the talaqnama notice sent by her husband while at her parents' home. Her husband approached the family court asking for the dissolution of marriage, leaving her homeless with her two-year-old son. The Supreme Court clubbed her petition with the others. Married in 2013, she accused her husband of dowry harassment and criminal intimidation following which he was also arrested. Aafreen Rehman: The 26-year-old petitioned the Supreme Court after she was divorced through speed post. She has accused her in-laws of mentally harrassing her and demanding dowry within a few months of marriage in 2014. Atiya Sabri: Married in 2012, Atiya is the last petitioner in the case and was divorced on a piece of paper, allegedly because she had two daughters and no son.

Triple talaq verdict: What it took for the five women petitioners

ishrat-jahan

Ishrat Jahan, News on Ishrat Jahan, stories on Ishrat Jahan, articles on Ishrat Jahan, Ishrat Jahan stories at Wion, Ishrat Jahan news, Ishrat Jahan latest news

ishrat jahan