TRIPLE TALAQ BILL HAS SOME POSITIVE FEATURES
By Sagarneel Sinha
Since the passage of the Triple Talaq Bill by both Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, there have been criticisms that it was passed by the BJP led NDA government with a selective mentality to criminalise the Muslim men. According to them, BJP, “which is anti-Muslim in nature”, is trying to attack the community through this Bill — which has now become a law. Actually, it seems that the problem is not with the Bill but with the BJP government. It is this political prism which is mostly responsible for this criticism.
Truth is it is not about which party — BJP or Congress or Left or some other party — brought this Bill, it is about providing justice to Muslim women who are divorced by this evil practice — which itself is un-Islamic. The bill makes the practice of giving instant divorce common in the Muslim community a punishable offence. Critics say — Why not make it a civil law? They also say that after the historic verdict of the Supreme Court in August, 2017, already the use of instant divorce is void. So when the divorce itself is void then why to bring such a Bill that also criminalises Muslim men?
Obviously, the exercise of instant divorce after the apex court’s ruling stands void. But what critics are ignoring is that even after the verdict there have been cases of instant divorce of Muslim women by their husbands. According to Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad on the floor of the Rajya Sabha (July 29) there have been 574 cases of instant triple talaq in the country after the Supreme Court’s verdict. It means that despite the Supreme Court banning instant triple talaq, the cruel practice still continues against Muslim women. So, to stop this, obviously a deterrent is required. For that a law is required and that’s why the Bill was passed. Not to forget that, even the Supreme Court itself had asked Parliament to bring a legislation on this matter.
It is true that the uttering instant triple talaq now legally does not invalidate the marriage after the Supreme Court’s order. But the point is many Muslim men are practicing it — that’s why there are 574 cases affected by this pracitice — even after the verdict. The punishable offence provided in the Bill is to punish those Muslim men who are still practicing this cruel practice against Muslim women.
There is also another question by critics as to who would offer alimony to the Muslim woman if her husband is sent to jail. Here, I would say that there are laws where married men are criminalised for committing murder, rape or robbery. So, according to this logic, it would means that no criminal men should ever be punished as they are married!
And the section who are saying that when Hindu men are not penalised then why to do the same for the Muslim men, this is not true. First of all, we should understand that instant triple talaq is practiced only in the Muslim community. However, not to forget that, there are laws that penalise Hindu men. If one reads the Hindu Marriage Act (also extended to Sikh, Buddhist and Jain), the individual would find that it criminalises bigamy where Indian Penal Code 494 and 495 are applicable accordingly. IPC 494 has the provision of imprisonment up to 7 years while in IPC 495, the incarceration can extend up to 10 years.
Just compare this with instant triple talaq case, where the provision of imprisonment extends up to 3 years. There is also another law named Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which applies to husband or relatives of husband for cruelty against women. Cruelty here means driving a woman to suicide or causing any grave injuries to her life or health — including mental health — also including harassment in the name of dowry — and if convicted the person would be sent to jail for up to 3 years under this law.
Another thing is that the common comparison of instant triple talaq with that of the women entry case in the Sabarimala temple is not identical. Because, the case of instant triple talaq is un-Islamic — not related to faith — while in case of Sabarimala, it’s a matter of faith. We should remember what the only dissenting judge Indu Malhotra of the Supreme court’s panel hearing the case, who also herself happens to be a woman, had to say about the Sabarimala case. She had said that the petitioners demanding for the entry of women in the temple are not directly affected by this and were not the devotees of God Ayappa of the Sabarimala temple. She also further stated that the practice was a tradition based on faith and it doesn’t override Article 25, which allows one to practice religion of one’s choice. On the other hand, in the case of instant triple talaq, the main petitioner named Sayra Bano herself was the victim of this evil exercise — which itself is not sanctioned in Islam.
Lastly, the purpose of instant triple talaq bill is to punish only the Muslim men who are still practicing this cruel exercise by going against the order of the Supreme Court. Basically, it will serve as a deterrent. This is not a selective agenda of the government to punish the Muslim men as being alleged. So, let’s not view this Bill through narrow political prism. This law is to strengthen the social justice of Indian society by providing justice to the Muslim women and also to bring parity to them with women belonging to other religious communities like Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain or Christian. (IPA Service)