Triple talaq a matter of faith, says Muslim board

Compares it to belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya

Triple talaq is a matter of faith like Lord Rama’s birthplace in Ayodhya and it cannot be interpreted or changed by any court of law, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The court, however, said it can find out if triple talaq is an intrinsic part of Islam.

“Triple talaq has been there since AD 637. Who are we to say that this is un-Islamic? Muslims are practising it for the last 1,400 years. It is a matter of faith. Hence, there is no question of constitutional morality and equity,” said former law minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the AIMPLB.

“If I have faith that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, then it’s a matter of faith. You cannot apply the principle of equity, good conscience and constitutional morality to it,” he told a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar.

The bench, however, said, “Some women have come for justice before us... may be after 1,400 years. We can undertake the exercise to find out if it can be an intrinsic part of the faith.” “If you (Supreme Court) interfere, where will it end? Then the question would also arise why me (Muslims) and why suo motu,” the counsel said. Sibal admitted the practice is “sinful, undesirable and irregular” and does not form part of Nikah-nama. He said the community itself wanted to do away with it and must be given time for it. “The community is pushing for change. Don’t force reforms on it,” he said.

During the hearing, the court repeatedly asked the AIMPLB if there is a procedure laid down for divorce in the Holy Quran, then why somebody “innovate” to bring in triple talaq? Why does it not form part of ‘Nikah-nama’, it further asked.

The board, defending the method for instant divorce, contended it was a matter of “faith and belief” being practised by 169 million people here, which cannot be interpreted by any court of law or tested on the constitutional principles.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and S Abdul Nazeer, repeatedly asked Sibal, “Suppose there is no provision for it in the Holy Quran, would you still continue with it? If there is provision of something (method of divorce) in the book, why do you innovate something else (triple talaq)? Is personal law derived from Quran only? If there is an apparent conflict between the Quran and Hadith, which would prevail?”