Tuesday November 21, 2017
Home India Muslim Law of...

Muslim Law of Divorce ‘Triple Talaq’ is Sinful and Undesirable but can be permissible if not misused, AIMPLB tells Supreme Court

0
60
Muslim women, Wikimedia

New Delhi, May 16, 2017: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that triple talaq was a “sin and undesirable” act, but still permissible and efforts are on to educate the community against its misuse.

Asking the court not to interfere with triple talaq as it was also a matter of faith which the community has practised for 1,400 years since the birth of Islam, senior counsel Yusuf Hatim Muchchala said that though permissible, triple talaq “is a sin and undesirable act, we are trying to educate people” but “it will take some time”.

NewsGram brings to you latest new stories in India.

Muchchala, who is also a member of the AIPMLB’s Executive Committee, made his suggestion to the five judge constitution bench in response to a question from it as to why triple talaq was excluded from the ‘Nikah Nama’ and why ‘talaq ahasan’ and ‘hasan’ alone are included.

Drawing a parallel, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, also appearing for AIMPLB, said that as some people believe that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya and it was a matter of faith and could not be adjudicated, similarly Muslim personal law too was a matter of faith and the court should be shy from stepping in.

Sibal was addressing the constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq.

Go to NewsGram and check out news related to political current issues.

The matter is rooted in October 16, 2015 order of the SC, directing separate listing of a PIL addressing the question of the rights of Muslim women.

As Sibal stressed on the point that personal law was a matter of faith and court should not step in, Justice Joseph said: “May be. (But) now some women have come to us for justice after 1,400 years.”

Telling the bench that ripple talaq is not something that “we can do with flourish”, Sibal said: “Personal law is drawn from Quran, Hadith and triple talaq is 1,400 years old. Who are we to say it is un-Islamic. It is not a question of good conscience or morality but a question of faith. It is not a question of constitutional morality.”

Telling the court that it had no role in the matter of Muslim personal law, and “parliament alone can decide what to do”, Sibal took a dig at Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi telling the court on Monday that it should strike down the all three forms of talaq amongst Muslims and centre would enact a new divorce law.

Look for latest news from India in NewsGram.

“For the first time you are with us”, Chief Justice Khehar said as Sibal said that the government could not ask the apex court to first strike down all three practices of talaq, then it will enact a law.

Citing the 1937 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, he said it was not an attempt to codify Muslim personal law and its “essential purpose” was to ensure that all those customs and practices which were contrary to Islam but being followed by those who embraced Islam should be discontinued and declared contrary to Islam.

Referring to Hindu Code where exceptions were carved out for protection of customs and practices, Sibal said: “You can’t say that all personal laws are protected but Muslim personal law was subject to fundamental rights.”

Similarly he referred to Dowry Prohibition Act, which while abolishing dowry, permitted gifts.

“Faith can’t be interpreted in the courts of law,” Sibal said, adding that we “enter into very very complex world where we will have to travel 1,400 years back in history to discover what is wrong and what is right”.

“I believe it so. This is my faith for 1,400 years. You can’t determine that my faith be so. You can’t test my faith on higher principles,” he said.

Saying that the diversity of India has to be nurtured and not ridden over roughshod, Sibal referred to the Constitution’s Article 371 which provides for special provisions in respect of different states and laws in respect of them can’t be made without their consent.

Hearing will continue on Wednesday. (IANS)

NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organisation. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt. 

Next Story

Love Jihad Case : Kerala’s State Women Commission Directs SP to submit report on Hadiya’s Condition

24 year old Akhila had converted to Islam and taken the name Hadiya to marry Shafin Jahan.  However, their marriage was declared null and void by the High Court of Kerala

0
28
Office of Kerala Women Comission
Office of Kerala Women Comission. Official Website KWC

Kerala, October 28, 2017 : A day after a video of Hadiya pleading to be ‘saved’ from her father’s brutalities was released, Kerala’s State Women Commission has directed Kottayam Superintendent of Police to inquire and submit a report on Hadiya’s present conditions.

In the video release at a press conference in Kochi by social activist Rahul Eashwar, Hadiya can be heard saying, “You have to get me out. I am sure I will be killed tomorrow or the day after.” Hadiya claims that her father is physically assaulting her and pleads to be saved in the video before her voice trails away.

The direction came following reports that Hadiya is being sedated and physically abused at her parents’ house.

The State Women Commission has told the SP that an officer not less than the rank of a DSP should conduct the inquiry and submit a report on the condition of the 24-year old woman in love jihad case.

24 year old Akhila had converted to Islam and taken the name Hadiya to marry Shafin Jahan.  Their marriage was declared null and void by the High Court of Kerala after Hadiya’s father Ashokan has approached the court, claiming that his daughter had been forcefully converted and her alleged husband was involved in plans to take her out of the country for questionable reasons.

Consequently, Hadiya’s husband Shafin Jahan had approached the Supreme Court and challenged the order by the High Court of Kerala, which is still hearing the case.

– prepared by Soha Kala of NewsGram. Twitter @SohaKala

Next Story

Gorkhaland: SC allows withdrawl of Central Forces from Darjeeling

0
10
The Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India. Wikimedia

New Delhi, October 27: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Centre to withdraw seven companies of central paramilitary forces from trouble-torn Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts of West Bengal where the agitation for Gorkhaland, a separate state for Gorkhas took a violent turn.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed the Centre to withdraw the seven companies of Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) for being used for election duties in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat.

The bench also sought a response from the West Bengal government on the Centre’s appeal against the High Court’s order putting on hold its decision to withdraw 10 of the 15 companies of the central paramilitary forces deployed in the hill district.

The apex court also stayed the pending proceedings before the High Court and said that it will deal with the case in a holistic manner and posted the appeal of the Centre for further hearing on November 27.

In an interim order, the High Court had stayed the withdrawal of CAPF from the Darjeeling hills till October 27 after the state government approached it against the Centre’s decision.(IANS)

Next Story

Supreme Court Bans Pet Coke and Furnace Oil to bring down Air Pollution in NCR

India tops the list of biggest consumers of pet coke globally, which emits 11 per cent more greenhouse gases than coal. Consequently, India also records the highest number of deaths with pollution as its main cause

0
38
Supreme Court
Industries employing pet coke and furnace oil emit large amounts of sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide that can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause respiratory problems. Pixabay

New Delhi, October 25, 2017 : Environmental issues have been on the Supreme Court’s radar lately. After the crackers-ban on Diwali, the Supreme Court on Tuesday banned the use of two cheap but extremely polluting industrial fuels in and around New Delhi in an attempt to clean the air in the national capital region (NCR).

The Supreme Court banned the use of petroleum coke which is a dirtier alternative to coal, and furnace oil and has directed three states namely Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan to notify the ban on immediate basis. The decision came after the Court was informed about the soaring pollution levels in NCR following Diwali due to toxic gas emissions by industries that rely heavily on petroleum coke (commonly called pet coke) and furnace oil.

However, this was not the first time that the two pollutants were banned.

Previously, the hazardous fuels had been banned in Delhi in 1996. However, despite court restrictions, their use continued in the NCR in brick kilns, cement factories, ceramics manufacturers and paper mills.

The new order comes after a government-appointed body, the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) found high sulphur levels and recommended banning the two fuels to the court in April.

ALSO READ Was the Ban on Sale of Firecrackers in Delhi Successful? Data on Pollution Levels in Delhi Say Otherwise

On Tuesday, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice MB Lokur ordered for the ban to come into effect naturally from November 1 in case the government failed to notify the prohibit.

Why Did The Supreme Court Ban Pet Coke and Furnace Oil?

India tops the list of biggest consumers of pet coke globally, which emits 11 per cent more greenhouse gases than coal. Consequently, India also records the highest number of deaths with pollution as its main cause with 2.5 million Indians facing earth deaths in 2015, as per data by The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health

For an easier comparison, petrol and diesel comprise of 50 PPM (parts per million) of the extremely dangerous sulphur.

On the other hand, pet coke has 69,000-74,000 PPM and furnace oil has 15,000- 23,000 ppm sulphur in its composition.

Industries employing these two fuels emit large amounts of sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide that can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause respiratory problems like asthma, and bronchitis.

Burning of pet coke also releases sulphur dioxide which is a known cause of several lung diseases and acid rain.

How Will The Ban Affect Industries?

The ban on pet coke and furnace oil is believed to imply heavy losses to the industries using these fuels; the worst hit will be numerous small and medium sized industries that employ thousands of workers.

“Furnace oil is used in estimated
50-60% industries. As an alternate,
we can use CNG but it will cost us
nearly 2-3 times more”
– Dinesh Mittal,
                                     President of Sahibabad Industrial Area, Site-IV, (as told to Hindustan Times)

Pet coke is known to deliver more per-unit energy in comparison to coal, and is also readily and cheaply available which is why small-sized industries depend heavily on them. The low costs make it an attractive offer for the buyers. Banning the fuels may further restrict their ability to expand operations and hire more staff.

The Central Pollution Control Board had submitted a draft on stipulated norms in June which only received attention and was uploaded on the ministry website in October.  The furious Supreme Court also pulled up on the Centre for being insensitive and for “sitting and doing nothing” about the growing pollution levels in the NCR.

The Supreme Court has now ordered for the governments of  Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to notify the ban and complete the exercise by December 31.