Activist files PIL against 'Triple Talaq Law', says 'can't protect wives by jailing husbands'

The Triple Talaq Law continues getting mixed reactions. While some are looking at it as a relief, few are not happy about its implementation.

Lately, a PIL has been filed by a social worker and RTI Activist Mohammed Arif Jameel, challenging new legislation criminalizing the practice of triple talaq.

He claims that the protection of wives can’t be achieved by incarcerating their husbands.

In his petition, he has further claimed that the new law has been introduced for a specific class of people based on religious identity and the same causes grave public mischief, which if unchecked may lead to polarization and disharmony in society.

As per him, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 gazetted on July 31, 2019 is unconstitutional and has the propensity to deprive Muslim men and women of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, directed the Ministry of Law & Justice to file its objections in 4 weeks. The next hearing is on Sept 11.

Petitioner is of the opinion that Triple Talaq is a practice that dates back about 1,400 years and was legally recognized and enforced till the majority judgment in the Shahyara Bano case by the Supreme Court.

He further added that a practice, which was around for about 1,400 years — and 67 years since the Indian Constitution — came to be derecognized by the Bano case judgment didn't require the Govt's emergent intervention first in the form of an ordinance and thereafter via legislation.

Arif argued that when the uttering of talaq is now without legal sanction post the Bano case verdict as the marriage survives regardless of such an utterance, it’s difficult to imagine why the utterance of meaningless words should attract three years’ sentence.

“If the act has no recognition in law only Muslims can’t be penalized for committing the act,” the petitioner said in reference to the term “Muslim husband” in Sec-3 of the new Act, 'not reasonable.'

He further claims there is no reasonableness in the new legislation as it seeks to concentrate only on Muslims.

“There are statutorily prescribed procedures for divorce in other religions too and non-compliance of those procedures is not a punishable offense for members of the religions. There is no reasonableness or constitutional logic for making the procedural infirmity in effective divorce a punishable offense for members of the Muslim community alone and such legislation can’t withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the petitioner said, seeking the court’s intervention.

Source Link