In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India, directed the Union Government to provide data on criminal cases registered across the country for the pronouncement of "triple talaq" under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, passed the direction during the hearing of petitions filed by several Muslim organizations challenging the constitutionality of the 2019 Act.
The Act criminalizes the practice of triple talaq, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017, and prescribes imprisonment for a Muslim man who pronounces talaq thrice to his wife. The bench specifically asked the Union Government to submit data on the total number of FIRs registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, particularly with respect to rural areas.
Context of the Case:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, was passed by Parliament to address the issue of "triple talaq," a practice in which a Muslim man could divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" (divorce) three times. The Supreme Court had struck down this practice in 2017, declaring it unconstitutional in the landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India. However, the 2019 Act, which followed the Supreme Court’s ruling, introduced penal provisions for those who continued the practice, making it a criminal offense punishable by up to three years of imprisonment and a fine.
You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Latest Judgment].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Provisions of the 2019 Act:
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, primarily comprises two sections that are at the heart of the ongoing legal debate:
- Section 3 – Talaq to be Void and Illegal: Section 3 of the Act explicitly states that any pronouncement of triple talaq (whether by words, writing, or electronic means) is void and illegal. This provision ensures that a divorce, if pronounced through this method, has no legal standing.
“Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal.”
- Section 4 – Punishment for Pronouncing Talaq: Section 4 provides that any Muslim husband who pronounces triple talaq shall face imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine. This provision has been a point of contention for the petitioners, who argue that criminalizing this act is disproportionate and discriminatory.
“Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to a fine.”
Petitioners' Arguments:
The Act criminalizes triple talaq for Muslim men but not similar practices like desertion in other communities, violating Article 14 . Since triple talaq was already declared unconstitutional in Shayara Bano (2017), a separate law is unnecessary, and existing laws can address women's issues. Criminalizing talaq, a civil matter under Islamic law, infringes on Muslim men's fundamental rights.
Solicitor General's Defense:
Tushar Mehta defended the Act, stating it aims to address a social evil and that its punishment (three years) is mild compared to other laws protecting women's rights.
Supreme Court's Observations: The Court questioned why the mere utterance of triple talaq is criminalized when it's not legally valid. It also requested data on FIRs registered under the Act, particularly in rural areas.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's asked for data on cases under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, reflects ongoing scrutiny of the law's impact. Petitioners question its constitutionality, arguing that criminalizing triple talaq is unnecessary and discriminatory. The Court's inquiry into FIRs will play a crucial role in assessing the law's validity. The case raises important debates about whether the law effectively protects Muslim women or unfairly targets Muslim men, with broader implications for personal law in India.
