After hearing the Triple Talaq matter for six days, the Supreme Court on May 18 reserved its verdict on the contentious issue. The five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI JS Khehar heard detailed, strong and long arguments, starting from May 11. Six petitions had come up before the bench which had heard the matter during the on-going summer vacation of the top court. Besides the petitioners, the court heard arguments from AIMPLB, the centre and amicus curiae Salman Khurshid, among others.
On May 18, senior counsel Amit Singh Chadha, appearing for petitioner Shayara Bano said a hands-off approach would not solve the problem. A hands-on approach was the need of the hour, he pleaded and pointed out that the protection under Article 25 goes away the moment any discrimination takes place.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, said that the majority of Muslims were with them. He told the Court that the scholars on which the “opposition” was relying upon had several times countered the hadiths of Imam Bukhari. They were not the authentic source, he averred.
Grover quoted religious texts and said that in case of disputes within the schools, the court could step in and take out the best part. He cited the Shamim Ara judgment, but Justice Nariman said that the verdict was not binding on the bench.
Justice Kurian Joseph sought to know from amicus curiae Salman Khurshid, whether he continued to be a Muslim despite having married under the Special Marriage Act. Khurshid replied that he indeed was but as he had opted for a civil law, he won’t be governed by Muslim personal law. He also told the court (on being asked) that the personal law board was more scholarly.
Khurshid said that uniformity and equality were different things. He pleaded that judges should test morality on the touchstone of institutional morality and not popular morality.
Sibal argued that the courts couldn’t decide what was sinful, it was for the legislature to take the call.
Pointing out that the court was setting a wrong precedent by hearing arguments over triple talaq, Sibal said that the scholars should decide the issue through consensus.
The courtroom was resonating with arguments from former Union minister Arif Mohammad Khan, advocate Kapil sibal, Farah Faiz (one of the petitioners) and advocate Indira Jaising. Khan said that Quran had set the limit, but Sibal disagreed. Jaising wanted the court to be neutral. Faiz said time had come to take away the reins from “contractors” of religion and adhere to the Quran and Shariat.
—India Legal Bureau