Lok Sabha debate on Triple Talaq Bill - July 25, 2019

MEENAKSHI LEKHI, BJP - New Delhi MP 

I want to tell that it is not just economic backwardness, but the backwardness of mind and thought and that needs to be corrected. The thinking that religious law is immutable is wrong. People, who think that religion will control every aspect of social life, are wrong in their thinking and this is what needs to be corrected.

“What has been your greatest difficulty in independent India?” - Nehru was asked by Frencj journalist Andrey Markus And his answer was, “To make a just society on the basis of just laws.” And not just this, he also said, “…perhaps to create a secular state in a religious country.” 

Kya yeh dikkatey Modiji ka nahi hae !! creating secular state in a religious community !

 People like Nehru and Ambedkar must be wondering at the kind of people who succeeded them, because their dream of making India as one nation, their dream of having equality amongst people seems to have been forgotten by the people. 

No area can be away from constitutional protection. That has been repeatedly given colour by the Supreme Court’s enactments and orders. Somebody was talking about Sharia courts. 

I think, Shri Premachandran mentioned that in Uttar Pradesh those courts existand must continue to exist. This has been the observation of Supreme Court inRaghunath vs. Union of India in 1994 on what the State’s role is, could there bea parallel judiciary in the country, how could a parallel judiciary exist when 25.07.2019 Dir (VP)/Rjn Uncorrected / Not for Publication 311judicial role is assigned to Judiciary under the Constitution of India; probably hechose not to quote it but I am just quoting it. The Constitution of India is aparamount document on the basis of which each person needs to be grantedprotection and laws. 

 P.K. KUNHALIKUTTY (MALAPPURAM)

IUML

As per the last census, the percentage of divorce among Muslim communities is very minimal.
No statistics establish your argument. I should bring to your notice that it is only
0.56 per cent, whereas, in other communities, it is much higher. So, what is the
reason for you to bring this Bill? Major minority community of the nation as well
as the whole country knows that it is nothing but your political agenda. Now, the
election is over and you have convincing majority, absolute majority. So, what is
the need for you to pass such a legislation in a hurry? What you are doing here
is you are going ahead with your political agenda, nothing else. That is the
reason for this discrimination. 

The hon. Minister has very skilfully argued his case. Unfortunately, that is not at all convincing for the stakeholders of this country, that is, the major minority community of India. Why

is the Government not at all bothered about that?

Sir, we are a minority party. We have supported the Sabarimala issue. We are believers and you are also believers. Shri Premachandran was talking about

that. So, why is this double standard? Why is this discrimination? Are you not

ashamed? Is it not shameful to have discrimination and make the argument so

convincingly? Any lawyer can make a bad issue a good issue. That is what I

should say to our hon. learned Minister. So, you have to withdraw this Bill. 

P. K. Kunhalikutty

Since you are having a convincing majority and the election is over, political agenda can be set aside. At least you should have a reconsideration about that and withdraw the Bill. 

N K Premachandran, RSP 

If the Government is so pertinent and significant in promulgating an Ordinance and to make a legislation so as to protect the Muslim women in the country, then, Sir, mob lynching is also there in the country. Last week also, three persons were killed by the mob and the hon. Supreme Court has already specifically directed the Government to have a legislation on it. 

Why is the Government not ready to initiate a legislation on mob lynching? I am not going into the history of this case. This is being done with a clear political motive – to target a particular community in the country and there is no doubt about it.Three Ordinances have been promulgated. 

The first Ordinance was promulgated on 19th September, 2018, the second Ordinance was promulgated on 12th January, 2019 and the third Ordinance was promulgated on 21st February, 2019. Consecutive Ordinances have been promulgated so as to ban Triple Talaq. I cannot understand what was the necessity and emergency for promulgating an Ordinance. There is no justifiable answer. 

I would like to know, what is the need for a new law on Triple Talaq when the

hon. Supreme Court’s verdict is the law of the land?

 I would like to quote one of the fundamental maxims of criminaljurisprudence, “Nullum crimen sine injuria”. That means, no person shall bepunished for an attack that does not prove to be significantly harmful to anyone.Here, Sir, after 22nd August, 2017, i.e. after the pronouncement of the Judgment,an act of Talaq-e-Bidat does not in any way harm or violate the rights of a Muslimwife unless the husband refuses to perform the conjugal responsibilities or dutiesupon him or the wife is forced to leave from the residential place of the husband.Only in these two circumstances, you can invoke it. If these two circumstancesexist, we have Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which can be invoked andwe also have the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic ViolenceAct, 2005. You can very well invoke it. 

What is the necessity and need for another law? 

Blogger's New Book

Matters of marriage, divorce, succession, etc., are considered as civilwrongs.Imposing the punishment of imprisonment for three years for divorce isnot applicable to any other community. Why are you not imposing imprisonmentfor divorce in the Hindu community? Why are you not imposing imprisonment fordivorce in the Christian community? Why do you want to have it only in theMuslim community? That is why I say that this is a discrimination against theMuslim community. This is violation of Article 14, violation of Article 15, andviolation of Article 25 of the Constitution.  - Premachandran

DR. MOHAMMAD JAWED (KISHANGANJ): Congress 

Sir, I rise to oppose the introductionof this Bill. I would like to put forward few facts in this august House. The instant Triple Talaq has already been declared unconstitutional by theSupreme Court and is therefore non est. As per this Bill, a Muslim man can be jailed for upto three years along witha fine. This provision has the potential to destroy a marriage because of a falsecomplaint by a scheming relative. As per this Bill, the Magistrate will grant bail only after hearing the wife.This provision has far-reaching consequences as a man may get bail only onthe conditions imposed by the wife. This Bill is in violation of article 14 of the Constitution as it discriminatesMuslim women and women of other religions. Section 498A of IPC, DomesticViolence Act and Dowry Prohibition Act already apply to Muslims too. Therefore,there is no need of having an additional law to protect only Muslim women.

The Supreme Court, in the Triple Talaq Judgment, nowhere said that TripleTalaq should be a criminally punishable offence.

We have to understand what this Government wants to do through this

Bill. Imprisonment, not for abandoning his wife but merely for chanting ‘Talaq’

three times, for three years. Considering the punishment for causing death by

negligence, which is imprisonment of only up to two years, I think, the present

one is much more than what it deserves. This is more than rioting as well. This

Bill is laid with a political intention to harass the Muslim community and to portray

Islam, the religion of peace and equality, in bad light. 

SHRIMATI KANIMOZHI KARUNANIDHI (THOOTHUKKUDI) DMK

I would like to ask the Minister: why is it that he only cares about Muslim

women in this country? Does he not care about Hindu women, Christian

woman? There is no law which says, when you abandon a Hindu women or a

Christian woman, that you would be sent to jail and there would be no bail? Why

is that only Muslim women have to be protected and the Muslim men have to be

targeted while Hindu men or Christian men or men belonging to any other

community are allowed to go scot-free? 

Mr. Minister, do you not think that our domestic violence laws are stronger
than your Bill, which you have brought in here today? The domestic violence
laws are stronger and they protect the Muslim women also. Our domestic
violence laws do not leave the Muslim women out of it.
If they are really interested in going by what the Supreme Court says and
carrying it out in letter and spirit, I would like to ask the Government that when
the Supreme Court said that women can be allowed to enter Sabarimala
Temple, why were the BJP and its Government silent on it? Why did they
oppose it? Why should those women, who believe in God, who believe in that
religion, who want to enter the Sabarimala Temple, be stopped? What is their
answer for that?

ends