New Delhi: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that triple talaq is neither integral to Islam nor a “majority versus minority” issue but rather an “intra-community tussle” between Muslim men and deprived women.
It is the duty of this court to step in and put a final end to the practice, he added.
When Justice Kurian Joseph asked the A-G whether ‘personal law’ based on faith and scriptures can be tested by the court, the A-G said if personal law is in violation of the fundamental rights then this pernicious practice must go.
When Justice Joseph asked whether the court which had taken suo motu cognisance can return the reference without answering it, the A-G said the role of the Constitutional court is to test it under Article 25 (right to religion).
The Chief Justice of India told the A-G “the AIMPLB tells us don’t get involved in the thicket as different people say different things. When the government has not enacted a law for over 60 years, why should this court interfere?”
The A-G said “we are a secular democracy. If the practice in a religion is not in accordance with fundamental rights and if there is a conflict between personal law and constitutional rights, then the court should step it.”
Reiterating the NDA government’s stand that all the three forms of triple talaq should be struck down as unconstitutional, the Attorney General said that if the practice is not present in 25 Islamic countries then it can’t be said it is essential to Islam.
When CJI wanted to know whether the issue of faith of religious faith has been struck down by the courts, the Attorney General submitted that once Sati and Devdasi, etc were part of Hinduism and both were set aside. If triple talaq is set aside there will not be any vacuum as the government will enact a legislation on Muslim divorce, he said.
Mr. Rohatgi said that if All India Muslim Personal Law Board itself says that triple talaq is optional, sinful and undesirable then how can it be integral to Islam.
Opposing Mr. Kapil Sibal’s arguments that court should not interfere in personal laws, the Attorney General further said that personal laws could not be violative of the fundamental rights and court has a duty to interfere.
