Centre likely to oppose polygamy, nikah halala, nikah mutah, nikah misyar
New Delhi, June 29: The Central government is likely to support a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of polygamy, nikah halala (a requirement for a divorced couple to remarry), nikah mutah (temporary marriage in the Shias) and nikah misyar (short-term marriage among Sunnis) among the Muslim community.
The government, which has already taken a strong position against the practice of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy on the touchstone of their constitutionality in the Shayara Bano case, is likely to reiterate it when the matter comes up for hearing before the constitution bench, said informed sources.
The Supreme Court on March 26 sought the Central government's response on the plea.
Noting the importance of the issue, the top court had said the matter would be heard by a Constitution bench.
It is a matter of common understanding that when the government opposed instant triple talaq on the grounds of gender equality and justice, it will oppose nikah halala and polygamy on the same grounds, said a source in the Union Law Ministry.
Lawyer Madhavi Divan, who presented the government's stand during the hearing of challenge to instant triple talaq, said that in the Shayara Bano case "the Centre has already taken a strong stand on affidavit" on the issue of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy.
The Central government in an affidavit filed in April 2017 described triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy as "patriarchal values and traditional notions about the role of women in society" that were an impediment to the goal of achieving social democracy.
"The conferment of a social status based on patriarchal values or one that is at the mercy of men-folk is incompatible with the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution," the government had said.
"The right of a woman to human dignity, social esteem and self worth are vital facets of her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Contending that the practice of triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy were not protected by Article 25(1) guaranteeing right to profess, practice and propagate religion, the government in 2017 said that the "fundamental question (is)... whether in a secular democracy, religion can be a reason to deny equal status and dignity, available to women under the Constitution."
When the government filed the affidavit, the challenge was to triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy but when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Constitution bench, headed by then Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, the issue was narrowed down to the constitutional validity of instant triple talaq only.
The top court by a majority 3-2 verdict on August 22, 2017 held that triple talaq being practised by the Muslim community was "unconstitutional", "arbitrary" and "not part of Islamic faith".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
