New Delhi: Former Union law minister Salman Khurshid on Friday asserted in the Supreme Court that ‘triple talaq’ form of divorce in one stroke is sinful and said that anything sinful could not have been ordained by Islam.
Making his submissions before a five Judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman, Uday Lalit and Abdul Nazeer, Mr Khurshid said a sinful act like triple talaq could not be part of the Shariat law.
He said the All India Muslim Personal Law Board says triple talaq is an abhorrent practice, sinful but is valid in law. Mr Khurshid said “I cannot imagine any religious law which will validate a sin.”
Justice Kurian Joseph asked Mr Khurshid “Can anything sinful be taken as ordained by God and made a law by men? It cannot be a law made by men, even if it is valid. There is no sin in law but it is only in the eye of God.” Mr Khurshid said something which is sinful in the eyes of the God cannot be legal and triple talaq cannot be fundamental to religion.
He submitted that the Shias and the Malikis do not recognise the validity of the talaq-ul-bidat, while the Hanafi and the Shafi agree in holding that a divorce is effective, if pronounced in the biddat form, “though in its commission the man incurs a sin”. According to Shia law, there is consensus that triple divorce at one time will be counted as only one divorce though it is pronounced in several numbers and Imamia sect of Shia has faith that such divorce is no divorce. When the CJI asked Mr Khurshid how extensive is the use of triple talaq outside India, counsel said triple talaq is not practiced in any other country and is in use only among Indian Muslims.
Jethmalani for uniform civil code
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for one of the victims of triple talaq maintained that triple talaq is invalid and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 (equality before law) as the right of divorce is available only to the husband and not the wife. Mr Jethmalani said if secularism has to become a reality then Uniform Civil Code must be enforced. The State had an obligation to bring UCC but lawmakers have not done that.
