New Delhi: On Day 5 of triple talaq hearing, dramatic scenes were witnessed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the bench led by Chief Justice of India asked the respondents to show the mention of Talaq-e-Biddat or instant talaq in the Holy Quran.
CJI JS Khehar, holding the Quran, read out verses from Surah At-Talaq to a counsel of the respondents. In his reply to senior advocate V Giri, the CJI said there is no mention of Talaq-e-Biddat in the Quran, and only two other forms of talaq — Talaq-e-Ehsan and Talaq-e-Hasan — are mentioned in the holy book.
“You have to read all the paras before and after to give a complete picture. Even Mr (Kapil) Sibal cited only a select few. If you say the period iddah is compulsory after every pronouncement and it is the third instance after which it becomes irrevocable… hence, Talaq-e-Biddat finds no place in the Quran. We are only pointing this out to you because you should know that we also understand what is happening here and it’s not that we are not getting it,” said the CJI.
Justice Nariman echoed the sentiment of his brother judge and said, “Talaq-e-Biddat is not sanctioned by the Quran at all.”
Giri then said, “I accept it is my mistake and it was just my inference.”
Holding up a copy of the holy book, Justice Khehar said, “This book says that in every Friday prayers, you say that biddat is bad and should not be practised by any means. In every Friday prayer, you say it and now you say it is part of your 1400-year-old faith,” the CJI asked.
“If a judge of a secular court, who coincidentally happens to be a Muslim, tells me that implication of divorce is not what your school of thought is telling you but it is the other one and the one you are saying is wrong, then such a thing cannot happen and is impossible,” said Ramachandran.
The CJI had also said that applicability of Article 25 of the Constitution is restricted to matters which are essential to religion. “Protection of Article 25 is applicable only when it is about a practice which is essential to your religions and not for what is not essential,” stated the CJI.