New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court said on Thursday it will set up a fresh five-judge Constitution bench to hear the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hima Kohli and J B Pardiwala was urged by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who has filed a PIL on the issue, that a fresh five-judge bench was needed to be constituted as two judges of the previous bench-Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Hemant Gupta- have demitted office.
"We will form a bench," the CJI responded.
On August 30, a five-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M M Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia had made the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Commission for Women (NCW) and the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) parties to the PILs and sought their responses.
Later, Justice Banerjee and Justice Gupta retired on September 23 and October 16 this year respectively giving rise to the need for re-constitution of the bench to hear as many as eight petitions against the practices of polygamy and 'nikah halala'.
Upadhyay, in his PIL, has sought a direction to declare polygamy and 'nikah halala' unconstitutional and illegal.
The apex court had in July 2018 considered the plea and referred the matter to a Constitution bench already tasked with hearing a batch of similar petitions.
The apex court had issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by a woman named Farjana and tagged Upadhyay's plea to a batch of petitions to be heard by the Constitution bench.
The lawyer's petition sought declaring extrajudicial talaq a cruelty under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty) of of the IPC. It claimed nikah halala is an offence under Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, and polygamy a crime under Section 494 (Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife) of the IPC, 1860.
The apex court, which on August 22, 2017 banned the age-old practice of instant 'triple talaq' among Sunni Muslims, had on March 26, 2018 decided to refer to a larger bench a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy and 'nikah halala'.
While polygamy allows a Muslim man to have four wives, 'nikah halala' is a process under which a divorced Muslim woman has to first marry another person, consummate it and get a divorce from the second husband, if the couple were to remarry after a compromise.
The pleas were referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court after an earlier five-judge constitution bench in its 2017 verdict kept open the issue of polygamy and 'nikah halala' while quashing the practice of 'triple talaq'.
It had also issued notices to the Law and Justice Ministry, the Minority Affairs Ministry and the National Commission of Women (NCW) at that time.
Some petitions have also challenged the practices of 'Nikah Mutah' and 'Nikah Misyar' -- two types of temporary marriages where duration of the relationship is specified and agreed upon in advance.
In one of the petitions, a woman named Sameena Begum has said by virtue of the Muslim Personal Law, Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife) was rendered inapplicable to Muslims and no married woman from the community has the avenue of filing a complaint against her husband for the offence of bigamy.
Another plea was filed by Rani alias Shabnam who alleged that she and her three minor children were thrown out of the matrimonial home after her husband remarried. She has sought the practices of polygamy and 'nikah halala' to be declared unconstitutional.
A similar plea was filed by Delhi-based Nafisa Khan seeking almost the same reliefs.
She has sought declaring the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of the Constitution in so far as it fails to secure for Indian Muslim women protection from bigamy which has been statutorily secured for women in India belonging to other religions.
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.
Kanpur (UP), Dec 3: A 17-year-old vegetable vendor lost his leg after being run over by a train while he was collecting his belongings allegedly thrown on a track by police personnel during an anti-encroachment drive here.
Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Vijay Dhull told PTI that Head Constable Rakesh Kumar has been placed under suspension.
Police initiated an inquiry after several purported videos surfaced online showing the boy lying on the tracks asking for help as policemen and people try to rescue him, a senior official said.
"Prima facie, it appears Kumar showed negligent behaviour," Dhull said, adding that Assistant Commissioner of Police (Kalyanpur) Vikas Pandey has been asked to conduct the inquiry and submit a report at the earliest.
Police personnel had thrown a container of the victim, identified as Arsalan alias Irfan of Rawatpur area, and when he had gone on the railway track to pick it up, he was run over by a train on Friday, Dhull said.
Arsalan lost his right leg and suffered serious injuries to his left leg. He was taken to the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital from where he was shifted to the SGPGIMS where a surgery was performed on Saturday, he said.
Dhull confirmed that several purported videos of the incident have gone viral and police are trying to obtain the mobile clips and pictures. These will help police to establish the sequence of events, he said.
Interacting with reporters, a local, who identified himself as Mohammad Shanu, claimed that the victim lost his leg after being hit by a train when he was collecting his weighing scale thrown on the tracks by police during an anti-encroachment drive.
The victim's father Saleem, an auto-rickshaw driver, told media persons that his son's leg were severed on the spot.
A vegetable vendor thrown on Rail track by police. Gets run over by train & loses his legs. A a stray incident police brutality? No. An un-empathetic system fails to help poor earn livelihood wth dignity. Then acts so cruelly? @PMOIndia; https://t.co/iHpOGc7TZr via @YouTube;— Jitendra Kumar Ojha (@Ojha_Jkumar) December 3, 2022