Triple Talaq Bill passed: Arun Jaitley explains why anti-Triple Talaq Law is a necessity, exposes liberals' hypocrisy

Former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in his latest blog has explained why India needs to have Triple Talaq law. Making point-by-point arguments, he makes a case for how law helps women and ensures ir social security. Re his blog below:

‘Talaq’ without a Social Security

Both Houses of Parliament have approved “Triple Talaq” Bill. new law seeks to criminalise those who in defiance of law still resort to this practice and drive ir wife to destitution.

I h an opportunity to listen to debate in Both Houses. Strong arguments were presented on both sides. re are some basic principles to be kept in mind while analysing this issue.

social security for women in India

Those who champion case of liberalising marri and divorce laws must realise two basic facts. India is a developing society. Even though weaker sections are being provided certain facilities by Government, concept of social security does t exist in India. second important fact is that in a divorce proceeding, person can take vant of his own wrong.

Christianity tritionally did t accept idea of an easy divorce. conservatives were opposed to idea of divorce. However, with ecomic evolution of developed countries along with creation of a social security net, laws in developed world started liberalising. In most cases, negotiated settlements take place between wife and husband. husband has to pay a huge amount of alimony or maintenance. In many societies, divorce is accompanied with sharing of assets. We, in India, are still in a st where sharing of assets is extremely rare, maintenance levels are extremely low and post a divorce, unless she is working or employed, wife is driven to eir dependency or destitution. On basic principles of humanity, justice and fairplay, would it be right, irrespective of religion, to give to husband a unilateral right to end marri? fear of husband uttering three words will always keep wife subjugated and bear injustice.

Divorce, in India, take place eir by consent of both parties on agreed terms or one of parties approaches court for divorce on ground that spouse has committed a “matrimonial misconduct” ( grounds for divorce in Indian law). Most cases end in a settlement with eir a reconciliation or a divorce where a wife is provided for eir monthly maintenance or a large lump-sum of money which will maintain her. basic principle of matrimonial law is that person can take vant of his own wrong. Shariat law was an exception. husband may have wronged wife and still despite his own matrimonial misconduct divorce her by uttering three words to dissolve marri. This is against all canns of humanity, justice and fairplay. If this practice is opted by ors, many women would be driven to destitution.

Politics of this Bill

This Bill has exposed all those who consider mselves ‘liberals’. A ‘liberal’ should ordinarily be hostile to idea of discrimination and injustice perpetuated by an oral divorce. In this case, t one spoke in favour of Bill which is ending injustice. y raised weak arguments so that fundamentalists amongst Muslims are kept happy. Let us assume reverse of present situation. What if such a provision existed in Hindu law? Liberals, leftists, women organisations and perhaps even judiciary would have been shocked with such a provision and would have attempted eir for a repeal of law or it being declared unconstitutional. se people stand exposed because what y have attempted to raise farcical objections. y wanted to continue and defend an obsolete practice which promotes injustice.

RE | Subramanian Swamy Calls Triple Talaq Bill's Pass A 'national Renaissance Accepting Male-female Constitutional Equality'

Rights vs. Rituals

Fundamental Rights in India’s Constitution and Right to Practice and Propagate ones Religion is in same chapter of Constitution. How do you reconcile provisions of personal law which violates fundamental rights? What would be harmonious construction so that se provisions can co-exist?

I have consistently held opinion that re must be a recognised distinction between two aspects which stem out of religious interpretations. first is ‘rituals’ of a religion. Rituals cant be decided by law. y remain squarely within right to practice ones religion. However, fundamental rights belongs to all. One section of society cant be denied se rights. What affects right of a citizen – in this case Muslim wife, cant be determined by a religion. After constitution came into force, rights emanating from birth, rights of a mir, rights in relation to marri, divorce, succession, option, rituals etc., belong to every citizen. y should necessarily be compatible with fundamental rights. Granting an arbitrary right to a husband to orally and instantaneously divorce his wife and does t deal with any ritual which is in domain of a religion. In a society governed by Constitution and rule of law, prima facie, this practice of oral divorce violates both right to equality and right of a woman to live with dignity.

It is long overdue that courts re-examine wher rights being deprived to a citizen on grounds of personal law violate constitutional guarantees.

deterrent effect

Those with short-sighted vision have repeatedly argued that since Supreme Court has declared practice as unlawful, n why punish a husband who is indulging in an unlawful act. “Triple Talaq” right used by him is unlawful and does t exist, n why send him to jail? Supreme Court, by striking down practice of “Triple Talaq”, has merely me a declaration of law. This declaration has to be followed by a legislation which punishes offending spouse for indulging in this cruel act despite it being declared unlawful. Many conservatives would still practice this irrespective of what court has said. re is data available post judgement which establishes that this is actually happening on ground. Besides being tried for offense in a court, obviously husband will have to pay maintenance to his wife. Both se will have a strong deterrent effect for those who want to use weapon of “Triple Talaq”. y will think hundred times before using it due to onerous consequences of ir illegality. I have doubt that once an example is me out of some people, fear of its consequences will le to minimising this practice. If this law was t enacted, judgement of Supreme Court will turn into a futile acemic exercise where practice is illegal, if you still indulge in it, penal consequence visits you.

Why make a civil contract into a criminal offence?

Demanding dowry, indulging in bigamy or polygamy, indulging in cruel behaviour (including mental cruelty) are all criminal offences. A bounced cheque or a defamation may be a civil wrong but both have penal consequences in criminal law. Merely to oppose a progressive legislation, one does t have to invent a new jurisprudence.

Congress Party has ruled this country for a long time. During this period it has amended several personal laws to make m acceptable to changing social mind-set. But when it comes to Shariat, it is scared. It’s stand in both Shah Ba case and w in legislation emanating from Shayara Ba case, it has given a clear evidence of its intent. It does t mind Muslim women being driven to destitution. After all, fundamentalist vote bank is at a higher priority than justice being conferred to female .

RE | Triple Talaq Bill Passed: Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Hails It As A 'good Omen For Women's Stature In Society'