Triple talaq issue

Though progressive, the triple talaq verdict has turned out to be men scripting women’s destinies

It was a judgment that men and women, activists, homemakers and victims had waited for with bated breath. For on the outcome of this judgment depended the destinies of a large number of women who were on the receiving end of the menace of the Muslim practice of triple talaq.
It may have taken two years to decide the fate of Muslim women and men too, but the judgment by the apex court is hailed as historic and one that would pave the way for Muslim women to stand up and fight for their rights. The judgment will also elevate their status from being a mere victim at the hands of men who could at the drop of a hat walk out and annul a marriage by simply uttering talaq,talaq,talaq three times irrespective of how long the couple had been married. The practice was hanging like a noose around the neck of Muslim women till one fine day Shayara Bano decided to take on the cudgels and fight for her rights.  Shayara Bano was married off rather young and battled several problems during the fifteen years that she lived with Rizwan, a property dealer. When she fell ill, Rizwan packed off Shayara to her father’s home. After she recovered and wanted to return to her husband’s home, she drew a blank. She had all through her marriage lived under threat of instant divorce because Rizwan often said he would pronounce talaq on her. And when he actually did her world collapsed. He simply sent her a letter that contained the word talaq,talaq,talaq:divorce,divorce,divorce.
A distraught Bano rushed to the local cleric for help but was promptly told that the divorce was valid. It was then that she decided to approach the judiciary.
She filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court  seeking a ban on the practice of instantaneous triple talaq once Rizwan decided to put an abrupt end to their 15 year long marriage.

Bano's petition sought that the practices of talaq-e-bidat, nikah halala and polygamy under Muslim personal laws be declared illegal and unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
"The practice of talaq-e-bidat and divorce of a woman without proper attempt at reconciliation violates the basic right to live with dignity of every Muslim woman," her petition states.
"Muslim women have been given talaq over Skype, Facebook and even text messages. There is no protection against such arbitrary divorce. Muslim women have their hands tied while the guillotine of divorce dangles, perpetually ready to drop at the whims of their husbands who enjoy undisputed power. Such discrimination and inequality hoarsely expressed in the form of unilateral triple-talaq is abominable when seen in light of the progressive times of the 21st century," the petition states.
 Hers was a fight that started somewhat singlehandedly but along the way she got immense support with the entire community and those outside it too pledging support to her and the cause of hundreds and thousands of victims in the Muslim community. She also braved threats from clerics who told her to sacrifice herself for the sake of Islam.
 Not the one to succumb or give up,  Bano was  determined to take the fight to its logical conclusion.
 It was in Februaury this year that the  Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar began  hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq prevalent in the community and terming it unconstitutional. The apex court had on its own taken cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages by their husbands.
The Court had earlier this year refused  to hear all the other cases of polygamy, nikah and halala together, saying "it will focus on one matter at a time."
 Five judges from five different communities heard the controversial case in the highest court of the land comprising  Chief Justice JS Khehar who is a Sikh, Justices Kurian Joseph, a Christian,  RF Nariman, a Parsi, UU Lalit, a Hindu  and Abdul Nazeer, a Muslim.
Muslim organisations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMLPB) opposed the court's adjudication in Islamic matters, maintaining that these practices stemmed from the Holy Quran and were not justiciable. On March 27, the AIMPLB told the apex court that pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of the judiciary.
 The verdict hence was to have far reaching implications and thus have a bearing on the state and status of married Muslim women.
Therefore on August 22, all eyes were on the Supreme Court and the verdict it would deliver. And when it did there were tears and smiles. The men, many if them, sulked while women rejoiced.
The Supreme Court srtuck down triple talaq and ruled that  the Muslim practice that allows men to instantly divorce their wives  is unconstitutional.
The bench, that had deliberated for months  before issuing its order delivered its verdict in response to petitions from seven Muslim women who had been divorced through triple talaq. Shayara Bano was the first petitioner in this case.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by 3:2 majority. Justices Kurian Joseph, UU Lalit and RF Nariman delivered the majority Judgment while Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented.
The majority ruled that triple talaq be struck down, terming the practice “unconstitutional”.  The dissenting judges contention was that triple talaq is an established aspect of Sunni personal law and that it is up to the legislature to enact reforms. Justice Khehar’s judgment directs the legislature to follow the example of other theocratic Islamic states and correct the Shariat by drafting a Muslim divorce law. Justice Khehar even asks different political parties to keep their differences aside to frame a law.
However reformatory the judgment is what stuck out as a sore thumb is the absence of women representation in a case that would affect the lives of millions of Muslim women. Even while care was taken to have judges from five different faiths, women did not comprise the crucial bench. It was an all male panel deciding on a contentious issue of gender discrimination.
But perhaps the matter was out of their hand too given that of the 28 sitting judges in the Supreme Court 27 are men. The lone woman is Justice R Banumathi. Since 1950, there have only been half a dozen women judges in the Supreme Court, the first woman judge to rise to that position is Justice Fathima Beevi.
The issue is more of justice than gender but an absence does rankle particularly in the face of it being unclear why that single woman judge was not made part of the crucial bench. It would, even if not altering the judgment, send right signals about women being major stakeholders and having substantial representation in crucial decisions concerning  their future and more importantly that it is not men deciding the fate of women. As if now, however, progressive the  triple talaq verdict has turned out to be it is men scripting women’s destinies.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected]) 

Triple talaq issue

Though progressive, the triple talaq verdict has turned out to be men scripting womens destinies

It was a judgment that men and women, activists, homemakers and victims had waited for with bated breath. For on the outcome of this judgment depended the destinies of a large number of women who were on the receiving end of the menace of the Muslim practice of triple talaq. It may have taken two years to decide the fate of Muslim women and men too, but the judgment by the apex court is hailed as historic and one that would pave the way for Muslim women to stand up and fight for their rights. The judgment will also elevate their status from being a mere victim at the hands of men who could at the drop of a hat walk out and annul a marriage by simply uttering talaq,talaq,talaq three times irrespective of how long the couple had been married. The practice was hanging like a noose around the neck of Muslim women till one fine day Shayara Bano decided to take on the cudgels and fight for her rights. Shayara Bano was married off rather young and battled several problems during the fifteen years that she lived with Rizwan, a property dealer. When she fell ill, Rizwan packed off Shayara to her fathers home. After she recovered and wanted to return to her husbands home, she drew a blank. She had all through her marriage lived under threat of instant divorce because Rizwan often said he would pronounce talaq on her. And when he actually did her world collapsed. He simply sent her a letter that contained the word talaq,talaq,talaq:divorce,divorce,divorce. A distraught Bano rushed to the local cleric for help but was promptly told that the divorce was valid. It was then that she decided to approach the judiciary. She filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the practice of instantaneous triple talaq once Rizwan decided to put an abrupt end to their 15 year long marriage. Banos petition sought that the practices of talaq-e-bidat, nikah halala and polygamy under Muslim personal laws be declared illegal and unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The practice of talaq-e-bidat and divorce of a woman without proper attempt at reconciliation violates the basic right to live with dignity of every Muslim woman, her petition states. Muslim women have been given talaq over Skype, Facebook and even text messages. There is no protection against such arbitrary divorce. Muslim women have their hands tied while the guillotine of divorce dangles, perpetually ready to drop at the whims of their husbands who enjoy undisputed power. Such discrimination and inequality hoarsely expressed in the form of unilateral triple-talaq is abominable when seen in light of the progressive times of the 21st century, the petition states. Hers was a fight that started somewhat singlehandedly but along the way she got immense support with the entire community and those outside it too pledging support to her and the cause of hundreds and thousands of victims in the Muslim community. She also braved threats from clerics who told her to sacrifice herself for the sake of Islam. Not the one to succumb or give up, Bano was determined to take the fight to its logical conclusion. It was in Februaury this year that the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar began hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of triple talaq prevalent in the community and terming it unconstitutional. The apex court had on its own taken cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages by their husbands. The Court had earlier this year refused to hear all the other cases of polygamy, nikah and halala together, saying it will focus on one matter at a time. Five judges from five different communities heard the controversial case in the highest court of the land comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar who is a Sikh, Justices Kurian Joseph, a Christian, RF Nariman, a Parsi, UU Lalit, a Hindu and Abdul Nazeer, a Muslim. Muslim organisations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMLPB) opposed the courts adjudication in Islamic matters, maintaining that these practices stemmed from the Holy Quran and were not justiciable. On March 27, the AIMPLB told the apex court that pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of the judiciary. The verdict hence was to have far reaching implications and thus have a bearing on the state and status of married Muslim women. Therefore on August 22, all eyes were on the Supreme Court and the verdict it would deliver. And when it did there were tears and smiles. The men, many if them, sulked while women rejoiced. The Supreme Court srtuck down triple talaq and ruled that the Muslim practice that allows men to instantly divorce their wives is unconstitutional. The bench, that had deliberated for months before issuing its order delivered its verdict in response to petitions from seven Muslim women who had been divorced through triple talaq. Shayara Bano was the first petitioner in this case. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by 3:2 majority. Justices Kurian Joseph, UU Lalit and RF Nariman delivered the majority Judgment while Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented. The majority ruled that triple talaq be struck down, terming the practice unconstitutional. The dissenting judges contention was that triple talaq is an established aspect of Sunni personal law and that it is up to the legislature to enact reforms. Justice Khehars judgment directs the legislature to follow the example of other theocratic Islamic states and correct the Shariat by drafting a Muslim divorce law. Justice Khehar even asks different political parties to keep their differences aside to frame a law. However reformatory the judgment is what stuck out as a sore thumb is the absence of women representation in a case that would affect the lives of millions of Muslim women. Even while care was taken to have judges from five different faiths, women did not comprise the crucial bench. It was an all male panel deciding on a contentious issue of gender discrimination. But perhaps the matter was out of their hand too given that of the 28 sitting judges in the Supreme Court 27 are men. The lone woman is Justice R Banumathi. Since 1950, there have only been half a dozen women judges in the Supreme Court, the first woman judge to rise to that position is Justice Fathima Beevi. The issue is more of justice than gender but an absence does rankle particularly in the face of it being unclear why that single woman judge was not made part of the crucial bench. It would, even if not altering the judgment, send right signals about women being major stakeholders and having substantial representation in crucial decisions concerning their future and more importantly that it is not men deciding the fate of women. As if now, however, progressive the triple talaq verdict has turned out to be it is men scripting womens destinies. The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])