Is triple talaq religious practice? If out, how will Muslim men divorce, asks SC

The court is hearing seven petitions, including five filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of polygamy, nikah halala and triple talaq in the community.

Written by ANANTHAKRISHNAN G | New Delhi | Updated: May 12, 2017 10:27 am
Triple talaq, triple talaq law, supreme court triple talaq, triple talaq hearing, muslim divorce, triple talaq debate, india news, indian express news Advocate Farah Faiz, one of the petitioners in the triple talaq case, outside the Supreme Court on Thursday. (Source: PTI Photo)

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing arguments on a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of “instant triple talaq” (talaq-e-bidat) with some contending that “the practice was not part of Islamic law” and was liable to be struck down as “unlawful and unconstitutional.” The apex court wondered whether there was any alternate remedy open to Muslim men to seek divorce in case the controversial provision was done away with.

“If all the three forms of talaq are held bad in law, where will the Muslim man go for divorce?” the bench headed by Chief Justice of Indian J S Khehar sought to know.

The court is hearing seven petitions, including five filed by Muslim women challenging the practice of polygamy, nikah halala and triple talaq in the community. Other members on the bench are Justices Kurien Joseph, U U Lalit, R F Nariman and Abdul Nazeer.

The court raised the query when Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre was opposed to all forms of triple talaq. The ASG’s comments came as the court was hearing senior counsel Indira Jaising who contended that “the question is if the triple talaq provision is unilateral, where do the women go (for remedy)?”

Jaising added that it was up to Parliament to come up with a law in this regard to which Justice Kurien Joseph remarked: “If the Parliament does not, can this forum (do it)? Many a time, this court has thrown it to the Parliament but they have not done anything.”

As soon as the bench assembled for the day, CJI Khehar made it clear that the court will only examine the question of triple talaq — whether it was fundamental to the practice of the religion. Although the question of polygamy in the Muslim community, too, was sought to be raised by some of the petitioners, the court said this was unrelated to triple talaq and it would not go into it.

However, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Centre was against all forms of triple talaq and would argue on all aspects of gender justice including polygamy. The Centre will commence its arguments in the matter on Monday.

Opening the arguments for the petitioners in a packed courtroom, senior counsel Amit Singh Chadha, appearing for Shayara Bano, said: “The Muslim husband’s right to ask for divorce by uttering talaq three times in a row is completely unilateral, unguided, absolute and has no rationale. It cannot be identified with Muslim culture and is not part of Muslim law. So it is not part of religion and hence not part of the right to practise or propagate religion and deserves no protection.”

Bano, who hails from Uttar Pradesh, was divorced by her husband after 15 years of marriage by pronouncement of triple talaq and the divorce deed was sent to her by post.

Opinion | The battle against ‘triple talaq’

In a written statement, Chadha said: “Talaq given by post, or over telecommunications systems (e.g. SMS or WhatsApp), or over the Internet (Email or Facebook), are neither contemplated by the Holy Quran nor permissible, as there are no witnesses in such pronouncement of talaq. However, there is no protection for Muslim women of India against such arbitrary divorce. Muslim women have their hands tied while the guillotine of divorce dangles, perpetually ready to drop at the whims of their husbands who enjoy undisputed power. Such discrimination and inequality in the form of unilateral triple-talaq is abominable when seen in light of the progressive times of the 21st century. Further, once a woman has been divorced, her husband is not permitted take her back as his wife even if he had pronounced talaq under influence of any intoxicant, unless the woman undergoes nikah halala which involves her marriage with another man who subsequently divorces her so that her previous husband may re-marry her.”

The counsel questioned the authority of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind to frame and enforce rules for the community.

“The AIMPLB and Jamiat Ulama-i- Hind are only private organizations. They neither have any statutory or legislative recognition nor are they representatives of the Muslim community or interpreters of the tenets/religious practices of Islam. The AIMPLB has no power to frame and enforce rules that may govern Muslim citizens of India, but the AIPMLB nevertheless projects itself in a different light. It is submitted that an association of persons has no legal power or right to dictate or interpret personal law in a democratic nation, especially for non-members,” he said.

Related | No solid numbers for triple talaq, but divorce data show interesting trends

Pointing out that many Islamic nations across the world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Iran “do not recognize the husband’s right to unilaterally divorce through triple talaq and various other nations have undertaken significant legal reforms in this domain,” he added this “fortifies the fact that the impugned practices are not an essential tenet of religion”.

Appearing for AIMPLB, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, however, said these countries had undertaken the changes by way of legislation and that the court must not step into it. Jaising argued that the issue raised the larger question whether “personal laws will have to stand the scrutiny of fundamental rights.”

“In 1951, the Bombay High Court, in an order, said personal laws do not fall within the definition of law and cannot be touched. The judgement still holds. Though the question (whether personal should stand the scrutiny of fundamental rights) came up for the consideration of the apex court many times, it chose not to answer it,” Jaisingh said adding that the question will have to be settled some day.

CJI Khehar and Justice Lalit however, said there was no need to raise the personal law argument in this case as triple talaq had become a part of the statute after The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937.

At one point, Jaisingh said that Muslim personal law was better than Hindu law on some counts as there is express consent of the woman to the marriage in the former while in the Hindu system, it is implied when she enters the mandap. Justice Kurien, however, sought to point out to the counsel that even in the latter, what she was referring to as the rituals in the mandap cannot happen without consent (of both parties).

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. S
    S. Kumar
    May 12, 2017 at 9:21 pm
    It seems to me that the judges are looking for excuses to maintain the status quo.
    Reply
    1. S
      Sajed Syed
      May 12, 2017 at 9:12 pm
      If SC does not stand up and make a ru based on Women rights, equality and fairness to the oppressed, I will give Triple Talaq to Law and Order. I will do what my forefathers in medieval times did, 'Rule of Jungle" and "might is right", that is what was the original law and religion, and if I follow that do not blame me. Do not impose your civilized penal code on me. that is an infringement of my religious rights. Got it!!!
      Reply
      1. J
        John Joseph
        May 12, 2017 at 1:34 pm
        If stan and 21 other countries have abolished triple talaq, why can't India? A large section of Muslim women has been demanding an end to triple talaq. It is time the Sunni Muslim men who are use daily to slaving women give up their slave ownerships. The Indian Sunni jihadi men's position is in sharp contrast to the dominant trend worldwide. As many as 22 Muslim countries – including stan and Bangladesh – or their provinces have abolished triple talaq either explicitly or implicitly. The list includes Turkey and Cyprus, which have adopted secular family laws; Tunisia and Algeria and the Malaysian state of Sarawak, which do not recognise a divorce pronounced outside a court of law; and Iran, where triple talaq doesn’t have validity under its Shia law.
        Reply
        1. S
          SP
          May 12, 2017 at 1:31 pm
          Triple Talaq , Halala , Polygamy , Burqua , Skull Cap , Azaan , Special Beard, Madrrassas are part of iden y social and ru politics of a highly aggressive proselytizing community having violent religious theology mixing religion , social norms and politics to achieve / aid proselytizing . It is out of place in the background of Indian secular state/ republic. The court question should have been- where the men and the women desiring separation will go to ? The answer is to the Uniform Civil Code of India.
          Reply
          1. J
            John Joseph
            May 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm
            How can you justify from Quran for triple talaq. Well The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. No wonder terrorists use it to justify. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to if they do not join the slaughter. Most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms accordingly.
            Reply
            1. N
              Nitin Deolekar
              May 12, 2017 at 1:14 pm
              Due to Dirty Ambedkar-Nehru Laws, both Totally Failed to do common civil code; Muslim Sisters are suffering in India?? Pseudo?Secular??Nehru-Ambedkar gifted un-due facilities to Muslims in India? Who did not go to Pak and opted to remain in India. Mr.Ambedkar failed to do even common civil code?? He forced 1-wife act by Law for poor Hindu? forcing Hindu to go to courts even for simple mutual divorce; wasting Money as well as Prime Time in Life.. Due to Delay no child after 2nd marriage. So Hindu population is growing very slow compared to Muslims. However same Nehru-Ambedkar allowed 4-shadi Verbal Talak for Muslims !! so their population is growing 50 faster!! so their poverty and then few of them become ISIS terrorists, due to education in Madrassah, teacher ry paid by Great Govt at cost of we Majority Hindu tax payers!Now better reverse Mr.Ambedkar wrong laws? Dare to Apply 1-wife Law to Muslims and allow 2-shadi written Talak for Hindu!Apply China family planning law to Muslim
              Reply
            2. K
              Kg
              May 12, 2017 at 12:42 pm
              Do you know that their so called "unchanged" book was actually compiled by four tribal camel herders? If you look at their book, it is actually a conversation between four people who are recal what their prophet said about 100 years ago, they compile by looking at stones, leaves and loose talk.It was then again recompiled by another king, which is the present day version.
              Reply
              1. S
                salim
                May 12, 2017 at 12:36 pm
                Tripple talaq is unislamic. Quran says about two talaqs only. The conditions and terms are fully explained in chapter 65 of quran. No other reference is needed when clear instructions are there in quran. These do not need further explinations. If a muslim male follows all those conditions then there is chance of zero percent talaq. Allah says that amongst the lawfull things for muslims this one is most disliked by him. It should happen only in rearest of the rearest cases. As for ploygami again the laws are such that having a second wife and giving equal physogical and worldly status to both as asked by allah in quran is impossible. Even the rich number 1 cannot do that 100 . Therefore sc should refer to quran and ban tripple talaq just now. As for as bjps love for woman with tripple talaq is considered let them give justice to bilkis bano, gujrat roit victims of 1992. If bjp tallks in favour of muslim woman it smells a rat. Let them shut up and wait for sc.
                Reply
                1. J
                  John Joseph
                  May 12, 2017 at 12:56 pm
                  When people like you sunni Muslim male talk like this and blame BJP for everything then no wonder the world thinks all Muslim are terrorists. What has Koran to do with women getting equal rights? Can Muslim women give you triple talaq? Can Muslim women have multiple husbands or lovers. How can you be so illogical. You use Koran to justify the slavery of women. What is the difference between you and the terrorists who use the same example of Akira to bl0w innocent people citing verses where they will get 72 h s and kiII the Khafirs. No wonder there is no such thing as moderate Muslims. All of you are terrorists.
                  Reply
                  1. J
                    John Joseph
                    May 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm
                    The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to if they do not join the slaughter. Most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms accordingly.
                2. K
                  Kg
                  May 12, 2017 at 12:32 pm
                  Where do Muslim men go in UK, Australia,Europe, US, entire South America and and an? What kind of question is that? In all of the countries above, there is NO SEPARATE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW.What do Muslims do there? They follow the law;there it is not an "essential" practice to their religion? There, they don't 'protest' neither leave those countries instead they stand in ques to be allowed to enter.The point is,there they are less than 5 percent and the Christian majority is very particular.Here in India, because Hindus are so docile, they want to get away with everything.Hindus do not know even the meaning of secularism and everyone makes fool of them in name of secularism.All the countries mentioned above are secular but most of them also Christian. These Muslims only understand language of power,OTHERWISE you give them an inch being nice they will take a kilometer.They are the most coward people,they can only fight in a group, alone they dont have any courage or conviction.
                  Reply
                  1. I
                    Indian
                    May 12, 2017 at 12:31 pm
                    All IS-LAMIC LAWS are based on the VIOLENT ARABIA of the time of MU-HAM-MAD from 610 to 632 AD. It may have been a very advanced system of that VIOLENT TIME but has become OUTDATED. .................... Those MU-SLIMS insisting on ADHERING to those OLD TIME LAWS should not be allowed to avail any of the LATEST MEDICAL ADVANCEMENT for treating themselves and should be forced to treat themselves with 1380 year old medicines of 632AD. ....................... IS-LAM will improve only when MU-SLIMs edited out VINTAGE IDEAS from QUR-AN & SHA-RIA.
                    Reply
                    1. S
                      Sadananda Babu
                      May 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm
                      This is exactly why we need a Uniform Civil Code...... let this be the beginning
                      Reply
                      1. D
                        Dipak
                        May 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm
                        Before Md. arrived Hindus had great influence in Arabia (see Vedic Arabia by Querishi Khan, ) I wonder Muslim crescent has any link with half-moon of Shiva.
                        Reply
                        1. S
                          SP
                          May 12, 2017 at 7:16 pm
                          Most probably , the prophet when accompanying his uncle to Jeru m isting him in trading work , got to know about the unique concept developed during Upnishadic Period in India . It was the concept of Bramhan - the Super God. He used this concept to create Allah (a synonym in Arabic). But, also he used the concept for building his dream empire by developing a violent theology.
                      2. K
                        Kg
                        May 12, 2017 at 12:27 pm
                        Where do Muslim men go in UK, Australia,Europe, US, entire South America and an? What kind of question is that? In UK, a secular country, as with all the countries above, there is NO SEPARATE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW.ONE LAW FOR Everyone do Muslims do there? They follow the law.Is it then not an "essential" practice to their religion?They don't 'protest' neither leave those countries stead they stand in que to be allowed to enter.If it is so important for their religion, why don't they leave those countries.The point is,there they are less than 5 percent and the Christian majority is very particular.Here in India, because Hindus are so docile, they want to get away with everything.Hindus do not know even the meaning of secularism and everyone makes fool of them in name of secularism.All the countries mentioned above are secular but most of them also Christiian. These Muslims only understand language of power,OTHERWISE you give them an inch being nice they will take a kilometer.
                        Reply
                        1. M
                          Mohammad Dar
                          May 12, 2017 at 12:33 pm
                          Sure, but Muslims do not have a cons utional agreement with those countries , such as in india, made at the time of independence to divide Muslim unity, still sensitivities of Islamic faith are respected, as per an international norm, not intruded in with hindu immoral excuses to interfere in Islamic faith, such as in hindu immoral swamp of hinduism racism by faith india,
                          Reply
                          1. J
                            John Joseph
                            May 12, 2017 at 1:01 pm
                            Mohammed jihadi Dar you clearly said in 1947 that you want a separate country. India gave you thirty five percent ofnland for twenty percent of Muslims at that time. You did convert Ppaakistan and Bbaangladesh into Islamic. We also paid you. Now why are you here illegally? What cons utional agreement India had with Muslims? It fulfilled its obligations. Does P stan and Bbaangladesh have cons utional agreements with us Indians? No. So what have you been drinking? Except to take moral responsibility instead you are Bully ing. India is a Hindu majority country and by choice is secular. You are re going to push us and we will become Hindu rastra just like you have became Islamic Ppaakistan and Islamic Bbaangladesh. And the f you..
                            1. K
                              Kg
                              May 12, 2017 at 1:20 pm
                              What "cons utional agreement"? What are you are talking about? Seem to be high on Camel picc.There is NO such thing as Cons utional agreement 1947,we,made a country and a cons ution,You Muslims had a choice either to accept cons ution( MORE IMPORTANTLY accept The provision to make changes in it it by due process) OR LEAVE and go to stan.You sta because WE GAVE YOU A CHANCE TO STAY OUT OF HUMAN MERCY AND YOU DID NOT DO ANY FAVOR TO US BY STAYING;EVEN TODAY, conditions are same, YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO LEAVE OR ACCEPT THE CONS UTION AND LAW THAT IS TODAY, AND IF IT IS CHANGED IN FUTURE, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT TOO? OTHERWISE DOOR IS OPEN.THERE IS NO CONS UTION AGREEMENT and even if there was one by stretch of imagination, INDIAN PEOPLE'S POWER TO CHANGE THE CONS UTION BY VALID WAYS IS ALSO PART OF THE SO CALLED CONTRACT;Why there is darr (fear) with your name?you are so afraid?
                              1. D
                                Dipak
                                May 12, 2017 at 2:09 pm
                                I wonder if Dar do a bit of research on how Hindus were converted by the barbaric Muslim invaders.They used to consider Indian Muslims as third cl citizens dia was divided as Muslims could not live with Hindus (same DNA). When India was divided some traitors prevented from Indian Muslims moving to Pkistan. Now Indian Muslims want another stan.
                            2. c
                              countk99
                              May 12, 2017 at 12:07 pm
                              Why congress stands always the wrong side whether direct or in-direct
                              Reply
                              1. M
                                Mohammad Dar
                                May 12, 2017 at 12:35 pm
                                Because they signed the agreement with the Muslim citizens of the land. hogs of hinduism racism have problem with, to keep.
                                Reply
                                1. S
                                  Shabih Siddiqui
                                  May 12, 2017 at 12:38 pm
                                  Awesome faulty reasoning dripping with profound ignorance and simmering hatred.
                                  Reply
                                2. N
                                  Nitin Deolekar
                                  May 12, 2017 at 11:57 am
                                  Pseudo Secular?Nehru-Ambedkar Congress Slept on this problem for last 70 years? So Poor Muslim Sisters are suffering..Even When most of the Muslim Nations including Pak & Bangladesh changed Pseudo?Secular??Nehru-Ambedkar gifted un-due facilities to Muslims in India? Who did not go to Pak and opted to remain in India. Mr.Ambedkar failed to do even common civil code?? He forced 1-wife act by Law for poor Hindu? forcing Hindu to go to courts even for simple mutual divorce; wasting Money as well as Prime Time in Life.. Due to Delay no child after 2nd marriage. So Hindu population is growing very slow compared to Muslims. However same Nehru-Ambedkar allowed 4-shadi Verbal Talak for Muslims !! so their population is growing 50 faster!! so their poverty and then few of them become ISIS terrorists, due to education in Madrassah, teacher ry paid at cost of we Hindu tax payers!! Now better reverse Mr.Ambedkar wrong laws? Dare to Apply 1-wife Law to Muslims and allow 2-wife Talak for Hindu!!
                                  Reply
                                  1. C
                                    Chanakya
                                    May 12, 2017 at 11:44 am
                                    "How will Muslim men divorce then?" Seriously? Just like, how Arbaaz Khan and Malaika Arora did. Just like, how Farhan Akhtar divorced his wife. No one should be allowed to marry more than one person simultaneously - I know Salim Khan and Dharmendar will be up in arms at this comment. Immoral Islamic laws around marriages should be made illegal in India. The cons utional laws should be made equal for each and every citizens of India.
                                    Reply
                                    1. M
                                      Mohammad Dar
                                      May 12, 2017 at 11:51 am
                                      Not Mary but ra pe, hindu immoral way, if poor lady loses her husband, by hindu immoral religious tradition of hinduism immorality, practiced as a faith.
                                      Reply
                                      1. M
                                        M M Joshi
                                        May 12, 2017 at 12:03 pm
                                        It seems that abusing Hindus is only logical way you know. Do you know there is no concept of divorce in Hindu culture. But being a progressive religion people has accepted the changes brought out by law as per changing times. It seems you still want top either remain in medieval times or want to treat women as slaves. God forbid that same things happens with your sister or daughter then probably you shall appreciate pain others are suffering .
                                        1. D
                                          Damodar Biswal
                                          May 12, 2017 at 12:21 pm
                                          There r many widowed women getting married in the Hindu community.Also many women who r divorced through the court of law r getting married.They r not getting raped as has been claimed by u.All these r legal marriage.So,what the forum wants to know from u is whether u support or oppose triple talaq.Kindly refrain from diverting from the main issue.
                                          1. M
                                            Mohammad Dar
                                            May 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm
                                            You are using the word many, how many? 2 percent, or 5 percent, dungeon of hinduism immorality called hindu mander are full of them, and busy in business of hinduism pros ution by faith. Look at your self, before pointing fingers on Muslims, they do not force a woman to be ual slave of a hindu immoral man., but a wife.
                                            1. S
                                              Shabih Siddiqui
                                              May 12, 2017 at 12:45 pm
                                              Dear brother M Dar! Try some better reasoning and language.Its not so difficult. It does take some effort.Abusing is reflex action.
                                          2. V
                                            Vnk
                                            May 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
                                            It is sad that o muslim woman's views are on this blog only muslim MCP views are available and they r all for their privilege ( to treat their lady as a slave), which hey dont want to leave
                                            Reply
                                            1. M
                                              Mohammad Dar
                                              May 12, 2017 at 11:55 am
                                              Sure, from hindu immoral mouth of a hindu immoral by faith, believer of not a wife, but a dasi, slave in his life, or out to ra pe widows as many as he likes, specially wife of his departed brother. .
                                              Reply
                                              1. E
                                                Editor
                                                May 12, 2017 at 12:47 pm
                                                Who is this duffer muslim who does not understand the issue?The issue is triple Talaq.This rascal has abused Hindus but he is a duffer illiterate who wants to marry more than once but without following the Shariat.There are certain conditions for giving divorce which is core of real Islam.What is followed in India Congress Shariat only to get votes.
                                            2. P
                                              Praful Ganatra
                                              May 12, 2017 at 10:57 am
                                              ic question by SC that how Muslim men will divorce? presently, what path non muslim men adopt for divorce, the same course muslim men too will follow ! It is as simple as that !!! Supreme court is much worried about muslim men & their convenience and not about the muslim women subjected to utmost suffering and inhuman atrocities caused by ghastly practice of Talaq, talaq talaq.
                                              Reply
                                              1. S
                                                S Srinivasan
                                                May 12, 2017 at 10:29 am
                                                The Justice should know that the Muslim men haven't come from heaven.They are just as humane as others in our country.What rule prevails for other men and that just apply for them too.The Justice is unnecessarily raking up the issue what muslim men woulddo for divorce and what about the muslim woman.Were they not silent suffers all these years at the hands of menfolk.Strange thinking on the part of Chief Justice of India.
                                                Reply
                                                1. c
                                                  countk99
                                                  May 12, 2017 at 12:06 pm
                                                  When the knowledge goes higher or lower then there is a trend that they will forget the basics. The Judges doesn't know the basics here. One should have same rights and laws, for all citizens across India.
                                                  Reply
                                                  1. S
                                                    salim
                                                    May 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm
                                                    If a muslim follows the conditions of quran he will not even think of talaq. Talq is to be used when both become umbearable to each other.
                                                    Reply
                                                  2. E
                                                    Editor
                                                    May 12, 2017 at 10:26 am
                                                    This case should not be heard by the Supreme court stead Quran scholars should hear this case and give an impartial judgement.Scholars like Late Rafiq Zakaria or Asgarali Engineer should give correct interpretation of triple Talaq and not judges.
                                                    Reply
                                                    1. K
                                                      kjingar
                                                      May 12, 2017 at 9:57 am
                                                      Honorable supreme court must take up the case without complicating it. The decision should be just and logical and inline with the cons ution. The religion can't interfere with fundamental rights.
                                                      Reply
                                                      1. M
                                                        Mohammad Dar
                                                        May 12, 2017 at 10:23 am
                                                        And they are settled in the cons ution "The way" best human way, in teachings of Islam, law. limits of all the laws, limits, by the truth, HIMSELF. hogs of hinduism immorality, believers of a hindu forged alternate fact, truth, pot head Sanatan as their god, have no clue of it, because human wisdom , source of alternate fact "truth" without truth is not a wisdom, but hindrance to truth hinduism demagoguery, foundation of hinduism immorality , imposed as a religion.
                                                        Reply
                                                      2. J
                                                        James Parson
                                                        May 12, 2017 at 9:43 am
                                                        Our so-called secular politicians, intellectuals and journalists are silent like lambs on this issue. They cannot hide under sub-judice clause. It only shows their hypocrisy.
                                                        Reply
                                                        1. R
                                                          Rohini
                                                          May 12, 2017 at 9:33 am
                                                          The court has to settle the question of 'do personal laws fall under the amit of Article 13?' We are currently not being treaated equally, as promised in the fundamental right to equality. Really, is India a secular democracy? no. It isn't, till these issues are sported out. Isnt it strange how all of us have been made to believe we are recipients of article 133, when in relaity, the very laws that govern our lives (marriage, divorce, property etc) are fundamentally flawed as they cannot give is equality. The Indian Cons ution is a sham and a scam perpetrated on the citizens of this country.
                                                          Reply
                                                          1. Load More Comments