- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Center After Fresh Petition Challenges Constitutional Validity Of The Triple Talaq Law
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the central government in response to a recent plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 which criminalizes 'triple talaq'.The Supreme Court order came in response to a fresh petition filed by the Muslim Advocates Association.A bench headed by Justice N V Ramana...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the central government in response to a recent plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 which criminalizes 'triple talaq'.
The Supreme Court order came in response to a fresh petition filed by the Muslim Advocates Association.
A bench headed by Justice N V Ramana also tagged the fresh petition with other pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the law.
Passed by the cenral government on July 31, the 'triple talaq' law criminalizes the pronouncement of divorce or 'talaq' and prescribes up to three years imprisonment as punishment.
Muslim Advocates Association's counsel Kamlesh Kumar Mitra called the law's violation of Constitutional rights and said it has the potential to deprive Muslim men and women of their fundamental rights.
He also called the law as unconstitutional and sought a stay on the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act.
Incidentally, a total of four petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court so far challenging the constitutional validity of the triple talaq law.
Two Muslim organizations Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, a religious organization of Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics in Kerala, had also moved the Supreme Court recently, challenging the new triple talaq law’s constitutional validity.
The Jamiat Ulaima-i-Hind had said that the new law defined “talaq” to mean “talaq-e-biddat” or something similar having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.
“Pertinently, such a form of divorce had already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated August 22, 2017 rendered in Shayara Bano versus Union of India,” said Jamiat Ulaima-i-Hind's petition, adding that the top court did not express any opinion to criminalize the pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband.