On Day 5 of triple talaq hearing, dramatic scenes were witnessed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the bench led by Chief Justice of India asked the respondents to show the mention of Talaq-e-Biddat or instant talaq in the Holy Quran.  CJI JS Khehar, holding the Quran, read out verses from Surah At-Talaq to a counsel of the respondents. In his reply to senior advocate V Giri, the CJI said there is no mention of Talaq-e-Biddat in the Quran, and only two other forms of talaq — Talaq-e-Ehsan and Talaq-e-Ahsan — are mentioned in the holy book.  “You have to read all the paras before and after to give a complete picture. Even Mr (Kapil) Sibal cited only a select few. If you say the period iddah is compulsory after every pronouncement and it is the third instance after which it becomes irrevocable… hence, Talaq-e-Biddat finds no place in the Quran. We are only pointing this out to you because you should know that we also understand what is happening here and it’s not that we are not getting it,” said the CJI.   Justice Nariman echoed the sentiment of his brother judge and said, “Talaq-e-Biddat is not sanctioned by the Quran at all.”  Giri then said, “I accept it is my mistake and it was just my inference.”  The judges read Surah 4 verse 35 and said it needs an arbitrator. “Read the complete paragraph, you will see even this excludes triple talaq completely,” said the CJI.  Holding up a copy of the holy book, Justice Khehar said, “This book says that in every Friday prayers, you say that biddat is bad and should not be practised by any means. In every Friday prayer, you say it and now you say it is part of your 1400-year-old faith,” the CJI asked.  Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran also made his submissions and called the verdicts relied upon by the petitioners which had criticized triple talaq as baseless as it had opinion of scholars who form a minority within the community.  “If a judge of a secular court, who coincidentally happens to be a Muslim, tells me that implication of divorce is not what your school of thought is telling you but it is the other one and the one you are saying is wrong, then such a thing cannot happen and is impossible,” said Ramachandran.  The CJI had also said that applicability of Article 25 of the Constitution is restricted to matters which are essential to religion. “Protection of Article 25 is applicable only when it is about a practice which is essential to your religions and not for what is not essential,” stated the CJI.   The News 18 : 17th. May,17


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: