English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Triple Talaq verdict: How the dice rolled in the courts

Published

on

Triple Talaq

In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, in a 3:2 majority verdict termed Talaq-ul-Biddat or instant triple talaq as “manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional”; setting the practice aside. We bring to you a timeline of how the verdict, which comes as a relief to lakhs of Muslim women across India, came to pass

■ 16 October, 2015: While dealing with a case filed by a Hindu woman regarding her rights of succession and inheritance, a Supreme Court bench asks Chief Justice of India to set up an appropriate bench to examine if Muslim women face gender discrimination in cases of divorce

■ 5 February, 2016: SC asks Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to assist it on the pleas challenging constitutional validity of ‘triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy

■ 28 March, 2016: SC asks Centre to file a copy of the report of a high-level panel on ‘Women and the law: An assessment of family laws with focus on laws relating to marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance and succession’

SC also impleads various organisations, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), as parties in the case

■ 29 June, 2016: SC says triple talaq among Muslims will be tested on “the touchstone of constitutional framework”

■ 7 October, 2016: For the first time in India’s constitutional history, law officers of the Union government oppose the practice of triple talaq in the Supreme Court and move for a review on grounds like gender equality and secularism

■ 9 December, 2016: The Allahabad High Court, in a verdict, stopped short of calling the practice of triple talaq under Muslim law as “unconstitutional” but observed that personal laws could not override constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals

■ 14 February, 2017: SC allows various interlocutory pleas to be tagged along with the main matter

■ 27 March, 2017: AIMPLB tells SC that these pleas were not maintainable as the issues fall outside judiciary’s realm

■ 30 March, 2017: SC says these issues are “very important” and involve “sentiments”, says a Constitution bench would start hearing the matter from 11 May

■ 3 May: SC asks senior advocate and Congress leader Salman Khurshid to act as amicus curiae in the case

■ 11 May, 2017: SC says it would determine if the practice of triple talaq is in line with the Constitution and fundamental to Islam. “We will only look at triple talaq and whether it is constitutional and not go into issues such as polygamy,” a five-judge Constitution bench said.

■ 12 May: SC says the practice of triple talaq was the “worst” form of dissolution of marriages among Muslims and was “not desirable” even though there were schools of thought which termed it as “legal”

■ 15 May: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court that the Centre will bring in a new law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the practice of triple talaq is declared unconstitutional. He also asked the court to examine other aspects of Muslim personal law including nikah halala and polygamy

■ 16 May, 2017: AIMPLB says triple talaq is a 1,400-year-old practice, constitutional morality and equity cannot arise when a matter of faith is concerned

■ 17 May, 2017: SC asks the AIMPLB whether a woman can be given an option of saying ‘no’ to triple talaq at the time of execution of nikahnama (Islamic marriage contract). The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar also wondered if all Qazis can be asked to include this condition at the time of marriage

■ 18 May, 2017: SC reserves verdict on batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq

■ August 22, 2017: Judgement Day – Chief Justice of India begins reading out opinion given by different judges on the Bench. For a moment, it appears that since the verdict isn’t unanimous, the apex court wants to push the matter into the government’s lap as the Chief Justice and Justice S Abdul Nazeer favour that an injunction be imposed on triple talaq for 6 months during which the government can frame a law on the validity of triple talaq and have it passed by the Parliament.

However, it soon appears that Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer were both in a minority and the majority – Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman and UU Lalit – all ruled that Talaq-ul-Biddat is “manifestly unconstitutional, arbitrary” and also against the tenets of Islam and the Sharia laws. With the verdict split 3:2 and a majority calling the practice unconstitutional, triple talaq is set aside by the Bench.

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com