Triple talaq hearing continues in the Supreme Court. On Wednesday proceedings were as followed. Since the hearing started a New Delhi-based senior journalist has posting the development on his timeline. Talaq hearing is here:
“CJI on Wednesday asked AIMPLB that is it possible to give bride the right that she will not accept instant triple talaq.
“The clause can be added in the nikahnama which says that the marriage cannot be dissolved through instant triple talaq.
“SC queried that is it possible for AIMPLB to do that and whether their advisory will be followed by the Qazi at the ground level.
“Yousuf Hathim Muchala of AIMPLB said the advisory of AIMPLB is not mandatory for all Qazi to follow. However, they accept the suggestion in all humility and will look at it.
“The board also showed the court a resolution passed on 14 Apr 2017 which says that triple talaq is a sin and the community should boycott the person doing such an act.
“Kapil Sibal on behalf of Muslim Personal Law Board concluded his arguments. He made the following points:
“Kapil quoted the Indian Express story which is based on a survey conducted by Abu Saleh Sharief. The survey says that the incidents of instant talaq are only 0.4 per cent among Muslims. It is a small percentage. And it has been made as if all Muslim men wake up in the morning and the first thing they do is triple talaq. If the court interferes in personal law it would amount to opening of the doors and then allow entry into the house. (He meant that if personal laws are tampered in this case then it will lead to curtailment of other minority rights and open everything for judicial scrutiny)
“Raju Ramchandran for Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind:
“If a man divorces his wife through instant triple talaq then cohabiting with that woman becomes a sin. That is what my school of thought tells me. So if the court now abolishes triple talaq it will force me to live with my divorced wife. The courts cannot force me to commit sin. Sin as I believe.
“Triple talaq may be wrong in some school of thought. The high court judgements earlier have relied on other school of thoughts which I do not subscribe. The court cannot transplant my school of thought. The judge of a secular court cannot tell me that I have read and understood your believe and what your school of thought telling you is all wrong. The courts cannot alter my school of thought.
“Justice UU Lalit asked Raju Ramchandran: There are times when Muslim couples register under Special Marriage Act. Under that act polygamy is not allowed. Also divorce cannot be done unilaterally. So do you think it is un-Islamic.
“Raju replied: The couple has deliberately opted out to get the benefit of secular laws. And yes it is un-Islamic.
“Kapil interrupted to hint him. It is not un-Islamic.
“Raju corrected himself. It is not un-Islamic because polygamy is just an option and not mandatory in Islam. The couple may not practice that.
“Raju Ramchandran completes his arguments,” wrote Ehtesham Khan.
The points made during the talaq hearing that is to continue.