X

DON'T SHARE NUISANCE.
SHARE NEWS.

Be a responsible citizen. Come, pledge to always check and share verified and vetted news.
»
2-min read

Triple Talaq Case: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict After 6-day Hearing

Debayan Roy | News18.com

Updated: May 18, 2017, 3:29 PM IST
facebook Twitter google skype whatsapp
Triple Talaq Case: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict After 6-day Hearing
IMAGE FOR REPRESENTATION ONLY (Reuters)

New Delhi: After six days of a historic hearing in the triple talaq case, the Supreme Court on Thursday concluded arguments and reserved its verdict, which is expected to come out in July.

Earlier in the day, Shayara Bano’s Counsel Senior Advocate Amit Chadha asked All India Muslim Personal Law Board to accept that the practice is a “sin”.

Addressing the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice JS Khehar, the counsel said, “AIMPLB, the male dominated and patriarchal board, should get rid of its beliefs. Triple Talaq is a sin.”

Chadha’s arguments came close on the heels of the statements made by Kapil Sibal, the counsel for AIMPLB, two days ago when he defended the practice of unilateral instant divorce, saying it was a matter of faith and belief.

ALSO READ | Kerala Court Rejects Petition to Legalise Talaq Sent by Post

Shayara Bano’s counsel also attacked the very reasoning put forward by the board.

ALSO READ | Congress 'Embarrassed' By Kapil Sibal's Defence of Triple Talaq in SC

“We all have debated that this practice is not part of the Quran and even the board has said that this practice is an undesirable practice. It has been declared irregular, patriarchal, and sinful by many schools of Islam, still we think it should not be touched by the court,” said Chadha, adding that the remedy was only to go to court with the matter, which was the guardian of the Constitution.

“Getting married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, is not the solution. Even the Parliament cannot solve this. I think the best place to solve this is the court, which is the custodian of Constitutional and fundamental rights,” argued the counsel, adding that the practice is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

“Article 25 will only uphold what my religion upholds. This practice is abhorrent in Islam and bad in theology and hence there is no violation," said Chadha.

Chadha’s statement made Justice Nariman intervene, who stated that the counsel’s words meant that the practice was not part of religion at all. Chadha replied in affirmative.

First Published: May 18, 2017, 2:14 PM IST
Read full article
Next Story
facebook Twitter google skype whatsapp