New Delhi: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), on day four of the hearing a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of triple talaq raised some good points but blundered again as he did on the first day prompting the judges to ask queries which he could not properly reply.
"The Hindus have no interference, then why only in the case of Muslims", Kapil Sibal submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Drawing a comparison with the Hindu laws, Sibal said that every Hindu customs and practices are preserved and they are still being practiced under the exception clauses of the acts.
“Dowry is prohibited under the Dowry Prohibition Act for Hindus but it goes on as customs and practices, under the exception clause. Same is the case with the Guardianship Act. But when it is about a Muslim you say it is violation of Article 14, 15 and 21,” said Sibal, according to News18.
Kapil Sibal asserted that the contention made by AG Rohatgi that triple talaq needs to be constitutionally tested under Article 14, 15, and 21 is misplaced.
“The intention of the 1937 Shariat Application Act was not to codify Muslim Personal Law. Shariat is personal law and it in no way comes under Article 13 of the Constitution. Hence since it is not law as per Article 13, it does not attract the drill of the fundamental rights,” he said.
Kapil Sibal however blundered again by saying that the cases being relied upon by Kerala, Madras, Delhi and Gauhati High Courts had observations from scholars who belonged to “the Ahle Hadees school of Islam and the Qadianis".
"Ahle Hadees are in minority and Qadianis are considered as non-Muslims, hence cannot be relied upon by this court", Sibal said, but could not prove them wrong on the basis of merit or Shariah ground.
Even bigger blunder by Sibal on day four of the triple talaq hearing in the Supreme Court was when he said "triple talaq cannot be tampered with as it’s something the Qura'n is silent about".
“The Qura'n does not mention any form of Talaq, whether it is Hasan, Ehsan or Biddah. The Quran does not say anything about triple talaq. Then how can we call it un-Islamic?” questioned Sibal.
This prompted Justice Kurian Joseph to say that the practice of triple talaq will be un-Quranic as it does not have any basis in the Quran.
At another point of the hearing, Sibal pointed that "the source of triple talaq can be found in Hadith and it came into being after the time of Prophet Muhammad".
To this, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar asked "Is e-talaq also there?" in a direct reference to many complaints from Muslim women that they had been divorced over WhatsApp and Facebook.
Sibal also equated triple talaq with the belief among Hindus that Lord Rama was born at Ayodhya.
“If I have faith that Lord Rama was born at Ayodhya, then it’s a matter of faith and there is no question of constitutional morality,” Sibal said, a remark that even others in the media are terming a blunder and something which will help the Modi govternment.
When Justice Joseph, unsatisfied with Sibal’s submission, asked, “If there is something so explicitly mentioned in the Quran, then what is the need to invent something at a later date?” Sibal fumbled and after consulting with his assisting counsels, he informed the court that only “Talaq-e-Biddat can be excluded as it is an undesirable form of divorce".
Post Comments
| Quick links