Legal Era Magazine in conversation with Mrunalini Deshmukh, outlining her thoughts on the recent triple talaq judgment by SC... Mrunalini Deshmukh started her legal practice in Bombay High Court under then Advocate General Arvind Bobade. Mrunalini later worked part-time as Professor to post-graduate students at Bombay University. Eventually, she got into practicing family law, first from...
Legal Era Magazine in conversation with
Mrunalini Deshmukh, outlining her thoughts on the recent
triple talaq judgment by SC...
Mrunalini Deshmukh started her legal practice
in Bombay High Court under then Advocate
General Arvind Bobade. Mrunalini later worked
part-time as Professor to post-graduate students at
Bombay University. Eventually, she got into practicing
family law, first from the Family Court in Mumbai,
subsequently moving on to the Supreme Court
of India, specializing in Cross-Border Matrimonial
Litigation (divorce, alimony & child custody).
Do you agree/disagree with the
SC Constitution Bench’s landmark
judgment outlawing instant triple
talaq divorce by Muslim men? Why?
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment which has held
instant Triple Talaq to be unconstitutional is in my opinion a
truly iconic judgment. The judgment does not do away with
the entire Triple Talaq; in fact, the Talaq-e-Hasan and Talaq
Ahsan have still not been touched by the Supreme Court in
this judgment. What they have held as unconstitutional is
a Talaq-e-Biddat, which is instant talaq, i.e., pronouncing 3
talaqs in one go. In my view, it is a great relief for thousands
and lakhs of Muslim women who constantly lived in fear of
receiving triple talaq either on Whatsapp or on the phone
or via letter. This has also in my view restored some dignity
to the Muslim women who otherwise felt rejected and
abandoned by their husbands. I believe that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has granted dignity to the Muslim women,
without any interference in the Personal law of Muslim, as
even the Quran abhors the practice of triple talaq. In fact,
if you see even in a lot of Muslim countries, instant triple
talaq has been banned, as the same adversely affected the
status and the dignity of Muslim women.
Do you think the judgment will worsen
existing communal tensions?
I do not see any communal tensions on account of this
landmark judgment. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has only done away with the oppressive instant triple
talaq (which is not recognized by the holy Quran) without
interfering in the personal laws of the Muslim. The print
and the electronic media indicate that a large section of
Muslim men and women, and some Muslim organizations,
and NGO’s have welcomed the judgment and it is only a
handful of dogmatic and fanatic Maulvis who are unhappy
with the judgment and perceive it as “interference in their
personal laws”.
The decision has rekindled discussion
on a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that
would replace existing personal laws
for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and
Parsis. Will the judgment actually
succeed in bringing about a UCC, and is a UCC advisable for the Indian polity?
In a way, this judgment has rekindled discussions on a
Uniform Civil Code (UCC). I believe this judgment is indeed
a unique judgment as, finally, even after various judgments
by the apex court in the past like the Shah Bano judgment
in the year 1975, there were no substantive amendments
made or legislation made to protect Muslim women from
this barbaric, oppressive instant triple talaq.
I would definitely and highly recommend that all personal
laws for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Parsis with regard
to marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, right to property,
etc. are substituted by a Uniform Civil Code, which in my
view would be gender neutral, and also bring in a lot of
uniformity in the laws, leaving very little to the judiciary for
interpretation. In my view, a Uniform Civil Code will largely
benefit Muslim women in matters of their alimony, divorce,
property rights, and inheritance. The very fact that the
framers of our Indian Constitution thought it fit and proper
to introduce Article 44 in the chapter, Directive Principles of
State Policy, shows that they were advocating uniformity in
civil laws way back in 1950. In fact, the various discussions
that took place between members of the drafting
committee focused on uniformity in civil laws as a great
step towards gender, justice, and gender equality.
Do you think the SC decision is a game
changer? Why?
I would surely look at it as a game changer, more so, as
Muslim women in India have been at the mercy of their
husbands for several decades primarily due to lack of
education and being financially dependent on them. Over
and above that, Muslim husbands had the authority to
unilaterally pronounce Instant Triple Talaq. This made the
Muslim wives very vulnerable. Hence, I would look at the
judgment as a game changer to some extent.