On Monday, August 19, the Indian government defended its decision to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq, a form of divorce in the Muslim community. The government filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the criminalization of Triple Talaq was necessary and in line with larger goals of gender justice and equality.
What Is Triple Talaq?
Triple Talaq allowed a Muslim man to divorce his wife by simply saying “Talaq” three times. This practice was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017. However, the Indian Parliament later passed a law in 2019 making Triple Talaq a criminal offense. The law came into force on August 1, 2019.
Petition Challenging The Law
The government’s affidavit was a response to a petition challenging this law. The petitioners, including the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, argued that since the Supreme Court had already invalidated Triple Talaq, making it a criminal offense was unnecessary and violated fundamental rights. They claimed that the law discriminates against Muslims and violates their right to equality.
Government’s Argument
In its affidavit, the government countered that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the practice of Triple Talaq continued. They pointed out that victims often had no legal recourse because there were no penalties for the husbands who performed Triple Talaq. The government argued that the new law was essential to protect women and prevent injustice.
Government Reports Reduction In Cases Of Triple Talaq
According to the government, the law has significantly reduced cases of Triple Talaq. Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi reported in 2021 that the number of such cases had dropped by 80% since the law was enacted. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, the number of cases fell from over 63,000 to just 221 after the law was introduced. The government’s affidavit emphasized that the practice of Triple Talaq had a negative impact on marriage and women’s lives. They described it as “fatal” to the institution of marriage and argued that new legal provisions were needed to prevent further harm.
Court’s Role In Evaluating Laws
The affidavit also highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously stated that it is not the court’s role to question the wisdom of laws passed by Parliament. The government maintained that it was up to the legislature to decide on the criminalization of certain practices based on current social conditions.