The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), in an executive meeting has expressed solidarity with its President, Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh who engaged in a verbal spat with CJI DY Chandrachud over listing of matter concerning allotment of Supreme Court land for the construction of lawyers' chambers.
The Association, in the 6th March meeting has also issued show-cause notices to Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan Kaul who apologised to CJI Chandrachud after the said heated exchange on behalf of the Bar.
The SCBA has further stated that any mentionings done by lawyers to "belittle the stand taken by President Vikas Singh" would be condemned and "future action" would be taken against such member.
In the meeting held in aftermath of President Vikas Singh taking a stiff stand in front of the CJI to get the matter listed after failing on previous six occasions, the members resolved to stand with the Association's head.
In the heated exchange, CJI DY Chandrachud asserted that he would not be cowered down by the Bar Members.
Mr. Singh was notably upset after not getting urgent listing of the petition to convert the land measuring 1.33 acres that was allotted to the Supreme Court into chamber blocks for lawyers.
Things escalated after the President hinted he might bring the matter to CJI's office and the latter rebuked Mr. Vikas Singh and asked him to leave the courtroom.
The matter has long earned the special attention of the SCBA President with him even writting to the present CJI seeking its urgent listing and hearing. He describes the matter as one peculiar to him as it pertains to lives and livelihoods. In the letter, he had even signaled 'protesting' if the matter isn't given the due attention.
He had also writtent to Ex-CJI UU Lalit with same concerns and contentions concerning the matter.
Second Battle: Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Ors.
In 2016, Shayara Bano was divorced by her husband Rizwan Ahmed, after 15 years of marriage, by way of triple talaq without any reason. She was one of the victims of domestic violence and dowry harassment. After receiving a divorce letter from her husband declaring instant talaq, she filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court. In the petition, she challenged the constitutionality of practices of talaq-ul-biddat, polygamy, and nikah halala. The petition also highlighted that these practices are in violation of fundamental rights including Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 25 (Right to Freedom of religion and conscience) of the Constitution of India. The plea was supported by women’s rights organizations including BMMA (Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan) and the Bebaak Collective. All India Muslim Personal Law Board, in opposition, argued that uncodified Muslim Personal law is not subject to judicial review. Also, it urged that under Article 25 of the Constitution divorce is a religious practice and thus protected. The case was referred to a larger bench as appealed by Shayara Bano and in 2017, a five-judge bench including Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Uday Lalit gave the decision on the matter.
The bench delivered the judgment in favor of Shayara Bano and declared triple talaq unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. The Supreme Court also ordered the legislature to take appropriate measures to stop abuse against women. While giving the judgment, Justice K.M. Joseph observed that talaq is against the Quran and said that “What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.” The other two judges, Justice Uday Lalit and Justice Rohinton Nariman said that talaq-ul-biddat is an unconstitutional practice as it is arbitrary as well as regulated by the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) application, 1937. Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Jagdish Singh Khehar stated that it is an essential religious practice in Muslim culture and is followed by a large number of people. Lastly, the Supreme Court stated that talaq-ul-biddat violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Through this verdict, the government of India took certain measures for improving the lives of Muslim Women and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
This Act was passed after the 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shayara Bano case focusing on the protection of the rights of married Muslim women as well as preventing instant divorce by pronouncing triple talaq. This Act introduced various changes in the context of Muslim law. Under Section 3 of this Act, it is illegal or void to pronounce triple talaq by a husband to his wife in any manner either written, verbal, or using any electronic media. According to Section 4 of this Act, any person who pronounces talaq in such a manner is subjected to imprisonment of 3 years or is fined. Moreover, Section 5 of this Act ensures Muslim women that they can seek allowance for maintaining themselves and their children from their husbands as well as Section 6 ensures that custody of a minor child is entitled to Muslim women. In addition to this, Section 7 of the Act
illustrates that bail can be granted to the accused by the Magistrate on reasonable grounds.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, there are more than one mode of divorce in Muslim law but talaq-ul-biddat is one of the most sinful and disapproved forms of divorce also known as triple talaq. Muslim women are not aware of the rights provided to them and are bound to the Muslim Personal Law. In early times, Muslim women who were disowned by their husbands were not able to reach the Court to fight for their rights. But after the Shayara Bano case, there had been various changes in the legislation for improving the lives of Muslim females. The most important legislation passed by the government after the 2017 case was the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 which declared instant talaq illegal or void.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments