HYDERABAD: Twitter was abuzz with #TripleTalaq all through the day as netizens took to the social media voicing their opinions. But the point of climax was when reports from Supreme Court initially stated that the draconian practice had been banned for a period of six months and it asked the government to pass a law to stop the practice.
A horde of tweets condemning the decision flooded twitter, with some even debating that the court had taken this decision in order to give BJP government a chance to frame a law and get the Muslim woman vote bank for elections next year.
But as the misinformation got rectified and reports emerged that the Supreme Court indeed banned the practice calling it un-Islamic, with the 3-2 majority judgement, the mood of Twitter changed.
Some tweets read, @Ramesh Srivats- #SupremeCourt rules that #TripleTalaq is unconstitutional. India achieves unity in 'divorcity.'
Azmi Shabana:-I welcome the Supreme Court judgement on instant Triple Talaq. Its a victory 4 brave Muslim women who have waged battle against it for years.
But for some the confusion continued to prevail as to what the judgement actually meant.
A Twitter user and HC lawyer, Navedeep Singh explained that could be the verdict of one of the Judges. Judges are free to render separate judgements in a Bench in the same case.
Navdeep Singh said, “The majority view becomes the one that shall prevail. Triple Talaq is unconstitutional and it is now binding law of the land.”
Confusion prevailed in Supreme Court as the verdict on the triple talaq issue was pronounced by a five-judge constitution bench, with many of those attending the hearing getting the first impression that it was a unanimous verdict. As Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, heading the five-judge constitution bench, read out the operating portion and concluded by using the word “we...”, several journalists rushed out of the courtroom to break the news to the world, assuming that the CJI has delivered the verdict for the entire bench.
However, the turnaround began when Justice Kurian Joseph started reading out the operative part of his judgement and disagreed with the findings spelt out by the CJI minutes ago.
