Friday March 22, 2019
Home India Supreme Court...

Supreme Court questions the Validity of Triple Talaq and whether it is fundamental to Islam

2
//
In Goa, oral divorce and polygamy is not allowed to Muslims
A Muslim Woman. Wikimedia

New Delhi, May 11, 2017: The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of “triple talaq” and to know whether it was fundamental to Islam.

“We are going to decide the validity of triple talaq,” said Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, heading a Constitution bench.

He asked the parties concerned to focus on whether triple talaq was fundamental to Islamic religion.

NewsGram brings to you latest new stories in India.

The Chief Justice said that petitioners and respondents would address the court on whether triple talaq was an enforceable fundamental right.

The bench sought suggestions on the broad parameters of the directions the court may issue while deciding the validity of triple talaq.

Other judges on the Constitution bench are Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

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

The court said both sides would get two days each to argue their case. Thereafter, both sides would get a day each to submit rejoinders.

Triple talaq is a practice under which a husband can verbally divorce his wife by uttering the word “talaq” thrice.

This has been opposed by a section of the Muslim society while others say it cannot be changed as it is part of Muslim personal law.

The Modi government wants triple talaq to go. The practice is not followed in many Muslim countries including Pakistan. (IANS)

  • P. B. Josh

    Why look deep in the religion? How many Muslim majority countries have abandoned this practice?

  • vedika kakar

    This practice is so horrifying- even if a man in his sleep says talaaq thrice, the marriage is over. Men have sent whatsapp messages quoting talaq, talaq, talaq. Is this how an institution such as marriage should be treated? Is this how a woman should be treated? I respect all religions as well as the rights of all humans

Next Story

Supreme Court Signals Out Automobiles Cause Much More Pollution Than Burning Firecrackers

Making it clear that it does not want to generate "unemployment", the court said those who would lose their livelihood can't be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.

0
air pollution
Linking the plea for a ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country with Article 19 (1)(g) guaranteeing the right to occupation, trade or business, a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde flagged the issue of loss of jobs if there was a clampdown on the firecracker manufacturing industry. Pixabay

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why firecrackers were being singled out for rising pollution levels when automobiles caused much more pollution. It asked the Centre to apprise it with a comparative study of the two.

Linking the plea for a ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country with Article 19 (1)(g) guaranteeing the right to occupation, trade or business, a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde flagged the issue of loss of jobs if there was a clampdown on the firecracker manufacturing industry.

Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right “to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.

crackers
Observing how there can be a ban on the firecracker industry whose operations were legal and licensed, Justice Bobde said the way out was not cancelling the license but there could be a change in the licensing conditions.
Pixabay

Sitting along with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Bobde said the issue had not been examined on the touchstone of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.

Making it clear that it does not want to generate “unemployment”, the court said those who would lose their livelihood can’t be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.

Observing how there can be a ban on the firecracker industry whose operations were legal and licensed, Justice Bobde said the way out was not cancelling the license but there could be a change in the licensing conditions.

crackers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why firecrackers were being singled out for rising pollution levels when automobiles caused much more pollution. Pixabay

The top court’s observations came in the course of hearing a PIL by a toddler — Arjun Gopal — seeking ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country.

Also Read: Social Media Becomes Major Battleground For Political Parties,Twitter Starts Showing Billing Details Of Political Ads

Noting the work being done by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) to produce green firecrackers, the top court had in its last order asked NEERI and PESO to stick the timeline culminating in the bulk production of firecrackers based on the new formulations by May 10, 2019.

The top court had in October 2018 permitted the use of only green firecrackers with reduced emission and decibel levels during all religious festivals. (IANS)