Khehar that triple talaq was integral to Muslim faith, said: Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible.Marriage in Islam is a contract, China thrust bearing Manufacturers and like other contracts, may under certain circumstances, be terminated.However, it said that reforms in personal laws to get rid of socially unacceptable practices in different religions have come about by legislative intervention, and the same legislative course needs to be taken with reference to the practice of talaq-e-biddat, for it to be set aside. It is however important to notice, that neither of those practices came to be challenged before any court of law. However, in extremely unavoidable situations, talaq is permissible.Triple talaq is a form of talaq which is itself considered to be something innovative, namely, that it is not in the Sunna (the Prophets practices), being an irregular or heretical form of talaq.
The fact, that about 90% of the Sunnis in India, belong to the Hanafi school, and that, they have been adopting talaq-e-biddat as a valid form of divorce, is also not a matter of dispute.Expressing themselves satisfied that the practice has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question, it said they were of the view, that since has had the sanction and approval of the religious denomination which practiced it, and as such, there can be no doubt that it is a part of their personal law, which enjoys constitutional protection.Justice Joseph however said: the Constitutional democracy of India cannot conceive of a legislation which is arbitrary.Article 142 of the Constitution provides for plenary powers of the Supreme Court for doing complete justice. Abdul Nazeer, in the minority judgment said: The factual and the legal position noticed in the foregoing paragraph clearly brings out, that the practices of Sati, Devadasi and polygamy were abhorrent, and could well be described as sinful.He said that if legislative process commences before the expiry of the period of six months, and a positive decision emerges towards redefining talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) or alternatively, if it is decided that the practice of talaq-e-biddat be done away with altogether, the injunction would continue, till legislation is finally enacted.The Holy Quran has attributed sanctity and permanence to matrimony. Lalit, said that triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it and thus must be held to be violative of the fundamental rights under the Constitutions Article 14.U.Justice Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice U. There is something astonishingly modern about this no public declaration is a condition precedent to the validity of a Muslim marriage nor is any religious ceremony deemed absolutely essential, though they are usually carried out.The minority judgment said that Talaq-e-biddat does not violate the parameters expressed in Article 25, not being contrary to public order, morality and health or violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 which are limited to State actions alone.What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.Failing which, the injunction shall cease to operate.Justice Kurian Joseph, while disagreeing with Chief Justice of India J.
Referring to CJIs order injuncting Muslim men from resorting to triple talaq after holding that it integral to Islamic faith and enjoying constitutional protection, Justice Joseph said: I also have serious doubts as to whether, even under Article 142, the exercise of a Fundamental Right can be injuncted. Each of the practices to which our pointed attention was drawn, came to be discontinued and invalidated by way of legislative enactments.Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible.New Delhi, Aug 22 (IANS) The Supreme Court which by a 3:2 majority decision struck down triple talaq as unconstitutional, arbitrary and not part of Islam, had differing arguments by the judges.He disagreed with the Chief Justice that triple talaq enjoyed constitutional protection under Article 25. But an attempt for reconciliation and if it succeeds, then revocation are the Quranic essential steps before talaq attains finality.IANSpk/rn/vdPost Source: Ians feed.It further said that triple talaq could not be set aside on the ground of violating the concept of the constitutional morality . They were clearly undesirable and surely bad in theology.In triple talaq, this door is closed, hence, triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat.S.Referring to international conventions and declaration, the minority judgment said that they are of no avail as the practice of talaq-e-biddat, is a component of personal law’, and has the protection of Article 25.Holding that triple talaq is violative of the Muslim womans fundamental right of equality before law, he said: Given the fact that triple talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is obvious that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place.Chief Justice Khehar and Justice S