English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Triple talaq law challenged in court day after receiving President’s assent

Published

on

Triple talaq law

A day after President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the legislation that makes instant triple talaq a penal offence and it became “The Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019”, it was challenged in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court on Friday, Aug 2.

Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama (SKJU), that claims to be the biggest religious organisations of the Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics in Kerala, moved the Supreme Court while the one in the Delhi High Court was filed by an advocate Shahid Ali, reported NDTV. Both allege that “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019” violates the fundamental rights of Muslim husbands.

They have claimed that the Act is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down.

“The Act has introduced penal legislation, specific to a class of persons based on religious identity. It is causative of grave public mischief, which, if unchecked, may lead to polarization and disharmony in society,” the plea filed in the top court said.

The petition in Supreme Court

The SKJU has submitted that the legislation is class specific to Muslims and the intent behind the Act is not abolition of triple talaq but “to punish Muslim husbands”.

“Section 4 imposes a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment when a Muslim husband pronounces Triple Talaq. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable as per Section 7,” the plea said.

The Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act of 2019 makes instant triple talaq a penal offence. It imposes a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment when a Muslim husband pronounces instant triple talaq. The offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

“If the motive was to protect a Muslim wife in an unhappy marriage, no reasonable person can believe that the means to ensure it is by putting an errant husband in jail for three years and create a non-bailable offence for merely saying ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’. Further, the offence is confined only to Muslim husbands.

“It is absurd that for an utterance which has no legal effect, whether spoken by Muslim, Hindu or Christian, it is only the Muslim husband who is penalised with a three-year sentence. Protection of wives cannot be achieved by incarceration of husbands…,” the organisation, represented by advocate Zulfiker Ali PS, contended.

It urged the court to stay the operation of the ordinance while questioning the haste with which the government promulgated it.

The petition contends that the Supreme Court has already declared the utterance of triple talaq “null and void”. The marriage continues despite the utterance of triple talaq. If triple talaq has thus no legal effect, why should the government go ahead and make it an offence now?

The petition argued that a truly welfare-oriented legislation would promote amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes, regardless of community.

The petition in the top court said there are statutorily prescribed procedures for divorce in other religions too and non-compliance of this procedure for divorce is not a punishable offence for members of other religions.

“There is no reasonableness or constitutional logic for making the procedural infirmity in effecting divorce a punishable offence for members of Muslim community alone and such legislation cannot withstand the test of Article 14,” it said.

It said that a welfare-oriented legislation would not purport to criminalise marital discord and moreover, particularise the criminalization only to one community.

“With respect, it is submitted that any such a legislation ought to shock the judicial conscience. The impugned Act is such an endeavour and ought to be struck down for violating Article 21,” it said.

Petition in Delhi High Court

The petition in the high court said that the new legislation criminalising the practice of ”triple talaq” among Muslims and making it a non-bailable offence punishable with three years of imprisonment, would shut down all room for compromise between the husband and wife.

It said that since triple talaq has been declared as void, the Act of its pronouncement cannot be construed to be a criminal offence or even as a simple wrong or a civil wrong.

The high court petition has alleged that the intentions of central government are “mala fide and ultra-vires” of the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court’s judgment, declaring instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband as void and illegal.

It claimed that there could be misuse of criminalisation of ”triple talaq” as the Act does not provide for a mechanism to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations of such pronouncement.

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com