The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Government to provide statistics on the number of criminal cases filed against Muslim men under the law that criminalizes the practice of instant triple talaq, known formally as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. This request highlights the ongoing scrutiny of the legislation which was enacted following the Supreme Court’s declaration that the practice of triple talaq is void.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and including Justice Sanjay Kumar, specifically asked for details regarding the First Information Reports (FIRs) and charge sheets filed under the Act, particularly emphasizing the rural incidences to gauge the law’s impact on the ground.
Triple talaq, or the practice of a Muslim man divorcing his wife by uttering “talaq” three times, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in August 2017. Subsequently, the 2019 Act was introduced, making it a non-bailable offense punishable with up to three years in prison.
The legislation has been contested on grounds that it criminalizes a civil matter disproportionately and excessively. Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the Act, argued that the law penalizes even the threat of divorce, which should not be equated with actual criminal intimidation as per Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the law, stating that its primary aim was to protect Muslim women from the abrupt and unilateral termination of marriage, which left them destitute and vulnerable. He argued that the immediate and irrevocable effects of triple talaq necessitated a strong deterrent.
The discussion in court also touched on broader social implications and the specific targeting of a community’s practices. The petitioners, including prominent Muslim organizations like Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul, argue that the Act imposes harsher penalties than those for crimes with more severe social impacts, claiming it unjustly targets Muslim husbands.
Chief Justice Khanna pointed out the paradox in criminalizing a practice that is legally void, questioning the logical and legal basis of punishing an action that has no legal effect. This highlights a critical debate on the appropriateness of criminal sanctions for enforcing personal law reforms.
