Triple Talaq verdict: Centre won't rush to enact a new law

DHNS

August 22, 2017

New Delhi, Aug 22: The Centre is unlikely to rush into getting Parliament to pass a legislation following the Supreme Court's verdict declaring Islamic instant divorce law as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Rather, the government will send an advisory to all States to ensure the compliance of the Supreme Court order on 'triple talaq', officials said.

As the law ministry officials put it, the SC's majority judgment has already made it clear that triple talaq is unconstitutional and illegal.

Law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, "We will consider the issue in a structured manner but the prima facie reading of the judgment is that triple 'talaq' has been declared unconstitutional and illegal."

Minority affairs minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said the Centre would not do what the Rajiv Gandhi government did to negate the apex Court's verdict in the Shah Bano case by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

This nullified the SC's verdict in favour of granting Shah Bano maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with an upper limit of Rs. 500 per month.

From today onwards, if someone says triple talaq to a Muslim woman, it will not lead to divorce. Some amendments could be considered by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 as this law covers the Muslim marriages, law officials said.

During the hearing, the then Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi had said that all forms of talaq must be abolished and if such a thing is done by the court, then the government will indeed enact a legislation to regulate Muslim divorces.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq and asking the government to come out with a law in this regard after taking into account progress made in Muslim Personal Law – 'Shariat', in various other Islamic countries.

But the majority judgement by Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman and UU Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution. Justice Kurian Joseph, a part of the majority bench, went to the extent in stating that, “it is not for the Courts to direct for any legislation.”

Meanwhile, the top BJP leadership asked the party leaders to show restraint and not make it a religious issue. BJP spokespersons were told to treat it as a gender issue, related to equality of women.

Comments

Talaq is a worst thing permited in islam and should be done in only rarest to rarest possible time. But few people misuse this for thier own stupid benifits. Now if goverment will not pass the law and refer this judgement these people may follow our honourable prime ministers foot steps ( ie Abandon and go for others). In this case even bhakts also will not have a word to oppose.

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Officials to pay from salary’: Supreme Court issues guidelines on ‘bulldozer justice’

News Network

November 13,2024

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments