10 Sidelights Of Triple Talaq Hearing In SC

Team SoOLEGAL 21 May 2017 10:51am

10 Sidelights Of Triple Talaq Hearing In SC

After six days of continuous hearing, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court on May 18 reserved its verdict on several petitions which challenged the constitutional validity of triple talaq. There was some lighter side also to the otherwise serious and heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench on the contentious issue. LiveLaw presents you with ten of those.

  1. MULTI- FAITH BENCH BUT WHY NO WOMAN REPRESENTATION? It was an all faith bench which heard the matter. Chief Justice J S Khehar, and Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer belonged to Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim community respectively. By purpose or co-incidence, the composition of the bench is set to impart a sense of objectivity to the hearing of the sensitive issue. But questions were being raised in the corridors as why Justice R Banumathi, the sole woman judge of the apex court was not in the bench when the issue at hand involved women’s rights
  2. MUSLIM JUDGE KEPT MUM ALL THROUGH:Muslim personal law was under the scanner before the bench but eyebrows were raised as Justice Abdul Nazeer did not utter a single word during the six-day hearing. He was only seen speaking, and that too rarely, to Justice Rohinton Nariman who was sittiing next to him. He neither asked any questions or made any observations. CJI J S Khehar and Justices Kurian Joseph, Nariman and U U Lalit freely engaged the counsel seeking clarifications on doubts over religious practices and customs of the Muslim community
  3. “RAM TEMPLE” , “COW”; IS THE POLITICIAN IN YOU SPEAKING? SC TO KAPIL SIBAL: Sibal for All India Muslim Personal Law Board tried hard to drive home the point that issues like triple talaq were a matter of faith for Muslim community and the court shall not interfere. But when he compared it to the Ram temple saying the “belief that Ram was born in Ayodhya” too was matter of faith for Hindu community and the incidents of people getting killed for killing cows also was a matter of faith, the SC bench wondered if the politician in Sibal was speaking. Sibal denied it and said he was only trying to make a valid point.
  4. I AM A PARSI PRIEST: During the hearing Justice Rohinton Nariman revealed an unique identity of his as a Parsi priest. “I am not just a parsi but also a parsi priest”, he said.
  5. SLIPPERY SLOPE” AND “RAZOR’S EDGE”: When Justice Kurian Joseph asked Sibal how can the court validate something which was considered even by the Muslim community as ‘bad in theology’ and a ‘sin’, Sibal replied “your lordships job is not sit in a constitution bench and decide what all are sinful in society”, adding “your lordship is sitting on a slippery slope as demands for banning many more practices will soon arises after the court allows this one. All these are not in the court’s domain ..please do not venture into it”. Lawyer Indira Jaising then intervened to say it is not a “slippery slope but your lordships should walk the razor’s edge and yes it is a challenge to the judiciary”. CJI Khehar then joked: “If we use the razor’s edge everything will be cut into two..we do not want that”
  6. THE IPL ANOLOGY: When Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi for the Centre said that all three forms of talaq requied to be banned as they were “unilateral, unappealable”, the CJI added in a lighter vein: “This (ban on all three types) does not happen even in IPL. In one ball three wickets cannot fall. Then the AG responded, even if it falls, it will be considered as one ( referring to triple talaq where three utterances in quick succession is treated as one while world over even 100 quick utterances are considered as one and two more will have to follow at a gap of one month)
  7. WOMEN LAWYERS SHOUT DOWN SIBAL: On the last day, minutes before the SC reserved judgment, when Sibal arguing for AIMPLB said that even if triple talaq was bad and a sin, the women in the community wholly accepted it, women lawyers representing several aggrieved petitioners roared with disapproval. Loudly disagreeing with Sibal, they said “No..No..No”
  8. CLERICS, MAULANAS IN VISITORS GALLERY: Large number of Muslim clerics, Mullahs and maulanas were seen sitting in the visitors gallery of courtroom No.1 of the Supreme Court taking keen interest in the proceedings
  9. A MOSQUE/NAMAZ AREA IN HC BUT WHY NOT IN SC: Friday afternoon, a maulana was seen asking the security guards outside the courtroom if there was a mosque inside the court premises or at least a namaz area. He looked upset when the guard there were none. The maulana was heard asking the guard why there were no such facility in the court when the Delhi High Court even had a mosque within its premises. Many clerics were seen waving down autorickshaws outside the court gate to go the nearest mosque 2Km far.
  10. LAW STUDENTS, INTERNS DID NOT WANT TO MISS IT: Law students and interns descended in hordes in the courtroom to see live the battle between top lawyers on the contentious issue and hear the well-informed observations from the members of the constitution bench. Many were also seen making notes of the proceedings.

    Source: LiveLaw
Tagged: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi   Divorce   Muslim Divorce   Muslim Personal Law   SC Constitution Bench   Supreme Court of India   Triple Divorce   Triple Talaq   Triple Talaq Case  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Digital Payment Systemview all

Active Members

Have you activated yours ?

New Members view all

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work









Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.