भारत के संविधान का असंवैधानिक हिस्सा: अनुच्छेद 35A

जब से मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आया है, संविधान का सबसे अप्रसिद्ध और अनसुना Article 35A आजकल एक ज्वलंत मुद्दा बनकर सभी की जुबान पर छाया हुआ है। अधिकतर विधि के छात्र भी इस आर्टिकल से अंजान थे। यहां तक कि संविधान के "Bare Text" में भी इसका कोई जिक्र नहीं है।

अनुच्छेद 370 के तहत जम्मू कश्मीर को मिले स्पेशल स्टेटस के बारे में तो लोगों को पता है पर अनुच्छेद 35A से वो आज भी अनभिज्ञ हैं।

मैं बहुत ही सरल भाषा में आपको इसके बारे में समझाने की कोशिश कर रही हूँ।

आख़िर क्या है अनुच्छेद 35A?

अनुच्छेद 35A जम्मू कश्मीर की विधायिका को यह तय करने की पूरी आजादी देता है कि जम्मू कश्मीर के "स्थायी निवासी" कौन लोग होंगे। यहां तक की इस अनुच्छेद के अंतर्गत स्थायी निवासियों की नौकरी, ज़मीन, जायदाद, छात्रवृत्ति, सरकारी सहायता, सामाजिक सुरक्षा आदि से सम्बंधित विशेषाधिकार पर भी कानून बनाने की उन्हें पूरी आज़ादी है। इन पर बनाये गए नियम चाहे संविधान के किसी भी प्रावधान या मौलिक अधिकार या भारत के किसी भी कानून का हनन करें, हम कोर्ट में जाकर उसे चुनौती नहीं दे सकते। यूं कह लें कि आर्टिकल 35A क़ानूनन हमारे मौलिक अधिकारो  (याने Fundamental Rights) के हनन का एक लाइसेंस है।

अनुच्छेद 35A अस्तित्व में कैसे आया?

पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरु एवं शेख अब्दुल्ला के बीच हुए 1952 के "दिल्ली समझौते" के बाद भारत के राष्ट्रपति डॉ राजेंद्र प्रसाद के आदेश (Application to Jammu and Kashmir Order, 1954) के पारित होने के पश्चात यह विवादित Article 35A हमारे संविधान का हिस्सा बना। यह एक इकलौता संवैधानिक संशोधन था जो बिना संसद में पारित हुए , राष्ट्रपति के आदेश से अस्तित्व में आया।

26 जनवरी 1957 को अस्तित्व में आये जम्मू कश्मीर के संविधान के सेक्शन 6 में "स्थाई निवासी" को परिभाषित किया गया।

विवाद

इन सत्तर सालों तक अनुच्छेद 35A को अंधेरे में रखा गया, न तो यह पाठ्यक्रम का हिस्सा रहा और न ही संविधान की किताबों में इसे कोई जगह दी गयी। किताबों में तो अनुच्छेद 35 के बाद सीधे अनुच्छेद 36 आ जाता है।

संविधान के अनुच्छेद 368 (i) के हिसाब से संविधान में कोई भी संशोधन केवल और केवल हमारी संसद ही कर सकती है। अब प्रश्न यह है कि आखिर राष्ट्रपति ने कैसे अपने आदेश से इतना बड़ा संशोधन हमारे संविधान में कर डाला? क्या उन्हें ऐसा करने का अधिकार था? या फिर यह आदेश उन्होंने अपने अधिकार के बाहर जाकर किया? और आख़िर क्यों नेहरू सरकार ने इस संशोधन को निर्णय के लिए संसद के समक्ष नहीं रखा?

इन्हीं सब कारणों से इस अनुच्छेद की वैधता को पूरनलाल लखनलाल बनाम प्रेसिडेंट ऑफ इंडिया (1961) के केस में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चुनौती दी गयी जिसपर 5 जजों की बेंच ने अपना फैसला सुनाया। अपने निर्णय में न्यायिक बेंच ने इस आर्टिकल और इसके दुष्पप्रभाव की जमकर अवहेलना तो की पर ऐतिहासिक गलती करते हुए इसे वैध करार दे दिया। कोर्ट का आधार था कि संविधान का अनुच्छेद 370 (1) (d) राष्ट्रपति को पूर्ण अधिकार देता है कि वो जम्मू कश्मीर के "State Subjects" के कल्याण के लिए संविधान में कुछ "अपवाद और संशोधन" (exceptions and modifications) कर सकते है। पर सवाल यह है कि क्या इससे राष्ट्रपति को संविधान में संरक्षित नागरिकों के मौलिक अधिकार के हनन करने वाले संशोधन करने का भी अधिकार मिल जाता है?

आर्टिकल 35A का प्रभाव

हास्यास्पद बात तो यह है कि उस समय भारत में दो प्रधानमंत्री थे। भारत के प्रधानमंत्री पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू और जम्मू कश्मीर के प्रधानमंत्री शेख अब्दुल्ला। जम्मू कश्मीर सरकार ने वहां के कुछ ही निवासियों को परमानेंट रेसिडेंट सर्टिफिकेट (PRC) जारी करना शुरू कर दिया। सिर्फ PRC होल्डर्स को ही नागरिकता, वोटिंग राइट्स आदि मिले।

यह सीधे तौर पर संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 (समानता का अधिकार), अनुच्छेद 16 (सार्वजनिक रोजगार में समान अवसर) और अनुच्छेद 19(1)(e) (भारत के किसी भी हिस्से में रहने और बसने का अधिकार) का हनन करता है। आर्टिकल 15 का हनन करते हुए यह PRC सिस्टम, जन्म के स्थान के आधार पर भी नागरिकों में भेदभाव करता है। बिना किसी संशय के असंवैधानिक होने के बावजूद यह PRC सिस्टम आज भी आर्टिकल 35A की सुरक्षा के घेरे में लगातार क़ानूनन नागरिकों के मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन कर रहा है।

पीड़ित कौन?

PRC सिस्टम लागू होने से जम्मू कश्मीर में रहने वाले कई समूह प्रभावित हुए हैं। शेख अब्दुल्ला के इस साम्प्रदायिक एजेंडे में कश्मीर के अल्पसंख्यकों के लिए कोई जगह नहीं थी। जिन बाशिंदों को जम्मू कश्मीर सरकार ने PRC जारी नहीं किये वो अपने मौलिक तो छोड़िए सामान्य अधिकारों के लिए भी आज भी संघर्षरत हैं। सबसे अधिक प्रभावित हैं : गोरखा, वाल्मीकि और पश्चिमी पाकिस्तान से पलायन करके आये लोग।

गोरखा

1846 में महाराजा गुलाब सिंह द्वारा अस्तित्व में लाये गए रियासत जम्मू कश्मीर की सेना में शुरुआत से ही गोरखा सैनिकों का अहम योगदान रहा है। इसके पूर्व भी गोरखा सैनिक सिख राजाओं के नेतृत्व में लगातार कश्मीर को अपनी सेवाएं देते रहे। भारत पाकिस्तान बंटवारे के बाद पाकिस्तानी कबाइलियों से कश्मीर की रक्षा करने में भी बहादुर गोरखा सैनिकों के योगदान को भुलाया नहीं जा सकता।

दो सौ वर्षो से ज़्यादा से कश्मीर का निवासी होने के बावजूद जम्मू कश्मीर सरकार ने गोरखाओं को PRC जारी करने से मना कर दिया और एक लाख से अधिक गोरखा अपने पूर्वजों के बलिदान की कहानी कहती कश्मीर की धरती पर एक रिफ्यूजी की भांति रहने के लिए मजबूर हो गए।

न वो जम्मू कश्मीर में कोई सम्पत्ति या जमीन खरीद सकते हैं, न उनके बच्चे किसी कॉलेज में दाखिला ले सकते हैं और न ही वो कोई सरकारी नौकरी कर सकते हैं। वो अपनी जगह पर दोयम दर्जे का जीवन जीने को मजबूर हैं। नेहरू ने उनकी समस्याओं को पूरी तरह नज़रअंदाज़ किया और शेख अब्दुल्ला ने उन्हें नागरिकता देनें के खोखले वादे किये।

वाल्मीकि समुदाय

आज भी हजारों की संख्या में कश्मीर में रह रहे वाल्मीकि जो कि दलित समुदाय से आते है छुआछूत का शिकार हैं। 1957 में सफाई कर्मचारियों की हड़ताल के बाद जम्मू कश्मीर सरकार ने उन्हें PRC में कुछ छूट देने का वादा किया था। छूट तो मिली पर अधिक से अधिक एक सरकारी सफाई कर्मचारी बनने की।

आज 60 सालों बाद वाल्मीकि समाज की तीसरी और चौथी पीढ़ी पढ़ लिखकर स्नातक और परास्नातक तो हो गयी है पर इस अनुच्छेद 35A के प्रकोप के कारण अपने पूर्वजों की भांति वो भी सिर्फ एक सफाईकर्मचारी बनकर रह गए हैं।

वो लोकसभा चुनाव में तो वोट डाल सकते हैं पर विधान सभा में न उन्हें वोट डालने का अधिकार है और न ही सफ़ाई कर्मचारी से ज्यादा की नौकरी का अधिकार।

दुःख तो इस बात का है कि किसी भी राजनैतिक पार्टी, सामाजिक संगठन या फिर "सो कॉल्ड प्रोग्रेसिव इंटेलेक्चुअल्स" को इनकी चिंता नहीं है।

पश्चिमी पाकिस्तानी रिफ्यूजी

1947 के विभाजन के बाद हुई हिंसा के बाद हजारों हिन्दू परिवार जम्मू कश्मीर में पलायन करने को मजबूर हो गए थे।

5,764 परिवार जिनमें 47,215 लोग (अधिकतर शेड्यूल कास्ट) थे, को रिफ्यूजी की तरह बसाया गया।
सरकार ने उन्हें रहने के लिए कोई ज़मीन नहीं दी। वो ज़मीन के जिन छोटे टुकड़ों में रहते थे उन्हें उन टुकड़ों पर रहने की इजाजत दे दी गयी पर वो उस ज़मीन को बेच नहीं सकते हैं।

साठ सालों बाद आज उनकी संख्या करीब तीन लाख होने के बावजूद वो एक दोयम दर्जे के नागरिक की तरह जिंदगी बसर करने को मजबूर हैं। आज भी वो भूमिहीन मजदूर हैं जिनके पास न वोट देने का अधिकार है और न नौकरी पाने का। मुख्यतः दलित होने के बावजूद किसी भी दलितों के आवाज़ बनने वाले संगठन की आवाज़ कश्मीर तक नही पहुच रही !

न उनके बच्चे स्कूल से आगे की पढ़ाई कर सकते हैं और न उनकी भलाई के लिए कोई सामाजिक सुरक्षा योजना है। यह सब बिल्कुल पाकिस्तानी घुसपैठियों के उलट है जिन्हें सरकार ने खुद कश्मीर में सेटल किया।

शेख अब्दुल्ला ने इनसे भी सिर्फ खोखले वादे किये। अधिकारों के लिए ये लोग आज भी संघर्षरत हैं।

आज जब बांग्लादेशी घुसपैठियों को भी सभी अधिकारों के साथ बंगाल और असम में ज़मीन मिल गई है तब इन तीन लाख लोगों का अपनें ही देश में एक रिफ्यूजी की तरह रहना एक बड़ा प्रश्न खड़ा करता है।

औरतें

जम्मू कश्मीर की नागरिकता और उत्तराधिकार के कानून भी लिंगभेद करते हैं। एक PRC होल्डर महिला और गैर PRC होल्डर पुरूष से हुई संतान को उत्तराधिकार और PRC का कोई अधिकार नहीं। वहीं दूसरी तरफ एक PRC होल्डर पुरूष और गैर PRC होल्डर महिला से हुई संतान को कश्मीरी नागरिक के सभी अधिकार प्राप्त हैं।

मतलब एक महिला के पास अपनी पसंद से शादी करने की चॉयस (choice) नहीं है पर पुरूष के पास इस हद तक है कि वो लगातार पाकिस्तानी महिलाओं से निक़ाह करते आ रहे हैं।

भारत के महिलावादी लोग इस लिंगभेद पर चुप्पी साधे हुए है !

वर्तमान स्थिति

आज कश्मीर के ये लाखों लोग आशा के साथ सुप्रीम कोर्ट की ओर टकटकी लगाये देख रहे हैं। "We the People" NGO और चारु वली खन्ना की पेटिशन के बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस मामले को सुनने के लिए तीन जजों की बेंच का गठन किया है।

NGO की पेटिशन के मुताबिक अनुच्छेद 35A संविधान की आत्मा के ही खिलाफ हैं क्योंकि यह नागरिकता की एक अलग क्लास का निर्माण करता है। हम सभी सिर्फ और सिर्फ भारतीय नागरिक हैं। किसी और नागरिकता का सवाल ही नहीं उठता। नागरिकों को दूसरे राज्य में संपत्ति खरीदने या रोजगार करने से रोकना आर्टिकल्स 14, 19 और 21 में सुरक्षित मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन करता है।

चारु वली खन्ना की याचिका के मुताबिक आर्टिकल 35A Gender Discrimantory अर्थात लिंगभेदी है क्योंकि एक PRC होल्डर लड़की के Non PRC होल्डर लड़के से शादी करने पर यह प्रॉपर्टी के अधिकार भी छीन लेता है। उनके बच्चों को PRC न देकर वह उन्हें illegitimate children का दर्जा देते हैं।

35A कैसे रिपील किया जा सकता है?

सुप्रीम कोर्ट इसे असंवैधानिक करार दे सकती है।
राष्ट्रपति द्वारा उसी तरह के दूसरे आदेश से या फिर संसद के दोनों सदनों द्वारा संशोधन पारित करके इसे रिपील किया जा सकता है। अधिकतर लोग इस तरह के भेदभाव के खिलाफ हैं इसलिए किसी का भी आर्टिकल 35A का समर्थन करना तर्कसंगत नहीं है। राजनैतिक दल सिर्फ वोट बैंक के लिए इसका समर्थन कर सकते हैं।

बहुत कम लोगों को इसकी जानकारी है। किसी भी सिविल सोसाइटी मेंबर, सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता, दलितों के मसीहा या महिलावादी द्वारा गोरखा, वाल्मीकि, पश्चिमी पाकिस्तानी रिफ्यूजी और कश्मीरी औरतों के इस मुद्दे को राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर नहीं उठाया गया।

हमारे संविधान के वास्तुकार डॉ भीमराव अंबेडकर भी नहीं चाहते थे कि जम्मू कश्मीर को कोई विशेष दर्जा मिले जो हमारे संविधान की आत्मा के ही खिलाफ हो।

अभी हमारे देश में बहुमत से बनी सरकार है, लोग भी अपने अधिकारों को लेकर सजग हैं, यह सही वक्त है जब ऐतिहासिक गलतियों को सुधारा जा सकता है।

उम्मीद है वह दिन भी जल्द ही आएगा जब कश्मीर से कन्याकुमारी तक हम सभी सिर्फ और सिर्फ भारत के नागरिक होंगे। हम सब एक बराबर होंगे।

The Plight of the homogeneous: Love that Sees no boundaries

Love, sex and Marriage!

A girl and a boy may fall in love.

A girl and a boy may have Sex.

A girl and a boy may get married.

Heterogeneity is the so called order of the nature.

What if a girl falls in love with a girl? Not every girl's prince charming is a prince. What if a boy has consensual carnal intercourse with a boy?

No No No!

It is against the order of the nature. It is unnatural.

The laws are strict. Very strict. You'll be thrown into prison.

Imprisonment for life, 

Or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.....

And fine!!

"Everyone knows what my sexual orientation is. If I need to spell it out, I won't only because I live in a country where I could possibly be jailed for saying this." 

                                                           - Karan Johar

Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as section 377) which Penalizes consensual carnal intercourse between two adults has continuously harassed LGBT people and thwarted HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment efforts.

Two judge bench of Honorable Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kaushal (2013) upheld the Constitutional validity of section 377 stating that:

"Only a miniscule fraction of the country's population constitute LGBT community and in last more than 150 years less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing the offence under section 377 IPC and this cannot make sound basis for declaring section 377 Ultra vires."

The judgment was major setback for LGBT community and its struggle for equality. It raised hues and cries and of course some unanswered questions!

• Can LGBT community be deprived of its basic and Fundamental right of Right to sexuality because of their numbers?

• What if there was only one Lesbian, one Gay, one bisexual or just one Transgender?

• Does it make him less Indian? And hence the Constitutional protection provided to all the citizens of the country can be taken away from him in the garb of miniscule fraction!

Justice Leila Seth once wrote in The Times of India that the judgment is like saying that:

"The Parsi community could be legitimately imprisoned or deported because they number only few tens of thousands".

The nine judge bench of Honorable Supreme Court in its latest judgment on Right to Privacy sat with an eraser to rub the erroneous, mischievous, flawed and retrograde verdict of 2013. While declaring that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, the bench discredited the astounding claim made in Suresh Kumar Kaushal that the Constitutional protection is available to a group on the basis of its size.

Supreme Court gave a reason for celebration to the so called miniscule fraction. They looked at this judgment as a foundation for anticipated change.

The verdict on Right to Privacy has a bearing on the Constitutionality of section 377 of IPC.

But again, should only Right to privacy (under Article 21 of the Constitution) be the ground for challenging section 377?

Is a husband justified in beating his wife in the privacy of his house?

Can we do anything in our private compartments?

The argument should be based upon the discrimination (violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution) and the arbitrariness of section 377. The validity of such laws should be tested on the touchstone of permissible reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights.

But, of course, the consummation of marriage or a consensual sex between two adults is a very personal thing. Everyone has Right to privacy. Nobody can dictate what position of sex they should prefer. Some people stand by missionary, others might use sex toys or any other kinkier thing. Isn't one justified in saying "My bedroom, My Rules"?

In a country where marital rape is not regarded as rape, a person may be punished for even a consensual carnal intercourse no matter with his wife. A man in Aurangabad was arrested for having carnal intercourse with his wife after she lodged FIR in Police station.

The unanimous reaction was - "one cannot force his wife to have unnatural sex." But what if it was voluntary? Still punishable. Why consent doesn't make a difference? The very act of voluntary carnal intercourse has been criminalized which leaves a gay with no way to enjoy his sexual life.

In a landmark judgment Supreme Court stated that the ‘Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Law in Relation to Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity' should be applied as a part of Indian law.

The Yogyakarta Principles were developed by a coalition coordinated by the International Service for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists and were formally adopted by a meeting of experts in International law in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in November 2006.

These principles provide guidance on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexuals, transgender people and the obligations of states to promote these rights and ensure full equality.

Ninety nine countries which have signed a General Assembly Declaration of LGBT Rights or sponsored the Human Rights council's 2011 resolution of LGBT Rights support the legitimate demands of LGBT community.

The Canadian PM joined marchers in the streets of the city to celebrate LGBT equality.

The 44- year- old Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a Roman Catholic, has the pride of being World's first National leader to march in a Pride festival to celebrate and support LGBT Communities.

They are the people like you and me.

How can we forget Leo Varadkar? The son of an Indian immigrant who made history by becoming Ireland's youngest and first openly gay Prime Minister!

Leo marches with Pride. Source: Independent.ie

"It's not something that defines me. I'm not a half-Indian politician, or a doctor politician, or a gay politician, for that matter. It's just part of who I am. It doesn't define me. It is a part of my character, I suppose." 

-  Leo Varadkar

Countries such as Iceland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Serbia have had gay Prime Ministers.

Indian Novelist and poet Vikram Seth is a gay. He received many awards including Padma Shri, Sahitya Akedemi Award, WH Smith Literary award etc.

 Vikram Seth with his mother Justice Leila Seth. Source: The Hindu.com

While referring to her eldest son Vikram Seth, Justice Leila Seth in her response to the Supreme Court's Verdict in Suresh Kumar Kaushal wrote in the Times of India:

"Our eldest, Vikram, is now a criminal, an unapprehended felon. This is because, like many millions of other Indians, he is gay; and last month, two judges of the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of two judges of the Delhi High Court that, four years ago, decriminalized homosexuality. Now, once again, if Vikram falls in love with another man, he will be committing a crime punishable by imprisonment for life if he expresses his love physically. The Supreme Court judgment means that he would have to be celibate for the rest of his life- or else leave the country where he was born, and which he loves more than any other."

Son of Maharaja of Rajpipla in Gujarat, Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil is an openly gay Indian prince.  The life even for a gay Prince was not easy going. He had to encounter anger, criticism and what not from not only the warrior clan but also his own family members. Even a marriage with a princess which lasted for only 15 months without being consummated was not able to change his sexual orientation. With the disclosure of "Royal Secret", his parents put out a public notice and disowned and disinherited him in June 2006. 

Yuvraj Manvendra Singh on Oprah Show. Source: rediff.com

His story began spreading like a wildfire. He was invited by Oprah Winfrey as a guest on a segment called "Gays Around the World". Oprah dubbed Gohil as her favorite Royal. He used his position as a prince to fight for the rights of LGBT community and spread AIDS awareness through Lakshya Trust. His active involvement with LGBT issues kept him in limelight, and finally his family accepted him for what he was and he did not have to lead a double life.

I can cite endless examples of successful people from the so called Miniscule fraction to prove that they are not less than any homo sapiens in this world.

Love does not see any boundary, it has in the past led to the destruction of barriers like caste, creed and religion, it will soon destroy the wall of gender too. A fact everyone will be bound to admit. It is okay to be a "Homo". I see no reason as to why a homo should be forced to marry a hetero and hence lead an unsuccessful and double life when under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution every citizen enjoys right to sexual orientation. There are enumerable reasons for the Court to declare this colonial era's Draconian law, which British themselves have abolished in their country in 1960, unconstitutional. Why should LGBT community still be deprived of their Constitutional rights?

No matter what race, religion, faith, gender or sexuality, we are all people and that's it. Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to a human being and in no case it should lead to gender discrimination.

Let us agree that: "Hindu Muslim Sikh issai, Hetero Homo Bhai Bhai!"

Those Three Destructive Words!

Talaq Talaq Talaq!

I divorce thee thrice forever and render you haram for me!

Shah Bano Begam and Sayra Bano.

Inscribed on a piece of paper were three words: "Talaq, Talaq, Talaq". Ten years of tyrannical marriage, an abusive husband, forced abortions and then this piece of paper (Talaqnama), sent by Shayara Bano's husband to her parents' home where she was staying for almost a year! She is just one of the many victims of the tyranny of Triple Talaq in which the husband, quite often, pronounces talaq thrice at one occasion, sometimes over the phone, WhatsApp, or a divorce advertisement in a newspaper. The evil practices like triple talaq, nikah halala, and polygamy are responsible for the miserable condition of Muslim women in our country.

Before delving into the debate of Triple Talaq under Islam, it is imperative for us to understand the nature of Marriage and Divorce ordained under Islam so as to form a better perspective of the concept of Triple Talaq.

Is Nikah a contract or sacrament?

It is often said that under Islam, marriage is a contract constituted by ijab-o-qubool, and like any other contract it comprises an offer (ijab), acceptance(qubool) and consideration (mehr), so it can also be terminated or dissolved like a contract by the parties to the contract at any time. But in reality, there also exists a religious aspect of it. The Prophet of Islam is reported to have said: "Marriage is my Sunna, and those who do not follow this way of life are not my followers". It is considered as an act of ibadat as it protects the society from foulness and unchastity.

Prophet said: "He who marries completes half his religion; it now rests with him to complete the other half by leading a virtuous life in constant fear of God." [Al-Tirmidhi 3096]

It can be concluded that marriage in Islam is neither purely a civil contract nor a sacrament but the blending of the two.

Dissolution of Muslim Marriage

Under Muslim law, marriage is dissolved either by the death of the husband or wife or by divorce. Husband's right in respect of divorce is much greater than that of the wife.

During the period of Jahiliyat (Pre-Islamic period), divorce was used as an instrument of torture. The power of divorce possessed by the husband was unlimited and was frequently exercised by them without any regard to the marital obligations.

"They could divorce their wives at any time, for any reason or even without any reason. They could give divorce and also revoke the same as many times as they preferred. They could, moreover, if they were so inclined, swear that they would have no intercourse with their wives, though still living with them. They could arbitrarily accuse their wives of adultery, dismiss them, and leave them with such notoriety as would deter other suitors; while they themselves would go exempt from any formal responsibility for maintenance." [Furqan Ahmed, Triple Talaq: An Analytical Study with Emphasis on Socio-Legal Aspect 13 (Regency Publication, New Delhi, 1994)]

Prophet of Islam was disgusted by arbitrary divorce practices prevailing among the pagans and Jewish-Christian Arabs. To remove these evils, he framed the laws of marriage and divorce.

Talaq in Islam

The Prophet (PBUH) despised divorce and described marriage as his Sunnat.

Prophet said: "Divorce is most detestable in the sight of God; abstain from it". [Abu Dawud 9: 2173]

Talaq, different from the wider term Divorce, means the repudiation of marriage by or on behalf of the husband in an exercise of the power conferred on him.

Justice Krishna Aiyer observed:

"It (talaq) is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male enjoys, under Quranic law, unbridled authority to liquidate the marriage. Muslim law has taken a course contrary to the spirit of what the Holy Prophet or the Holy Quran laid down, and the same misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife's right to divorce."

[Yusuf v Sowramma, AIR 1971 Ker.261]

Modes of Talaq

1. Talaq-ul-Sunnat (an Approved form of Divorce)

           •Ahsan (Best mode of Talaq)

           •Hasan (Good mode of Talaq)

2. Talaq-ul-Biddat (a Sinful form of Divorce)

           •Written Divorce (Talaqnama)

           •Triple Talaq

Talaq Ahsan (pronouncement of talaq in a single sentence) becomes irrevocable on expiry of the period of iddat, and Talaq Ahsan (Three successive pronouncements in three successive tuhr) becomes irrevocable on the third pronouncement irrespective of the iddat. (Iddat: three menstrual cycle of women)

Talaq-ul-Biddat becomes irrevocable immediately when it is pronounced irrespective of iddat.

Talaq-ul-Biddat is a recognized form of Divorce among Hanafis. Sunnis accept it, though they consider it sinful.

Holy Quran provides a procedure for pronouncing Talaq, and it is emphasized that every possible attempt must first be made for reconciliation between husband and wife before the completion of the prescribed period. To check hasty action and leave the door for reconciliation, it is laid down in Holy Quran that Talaq should be pronounced in Tuhr (when the wife is free from her menstruation and is in a clean state). [Surah al-Baqarah 2:222]

Origin of Triple Talaq

Triple talaq was not in practice during the lifetime of first Caliph Abu Bakar and also for more than two years during the life of second Caliph Hazrat Umar. Later on, Caliph Umar permitted it to meet an emergency situation.

During a war, when Arab conquered Syria, Egypt, Persia, etc., they found women there much more attractive in appearance as compared to Arabian women and hence they wanted to marry them. Egyptian and Syrian women agreed to marry on a condition that Arabs should divorce their current wives instantaneously by pronouncing three Divorce in a single sitting.

The condition was readily accepted by the Arabs because in Islam divorce is permissible only twice in two separate periods of Tuhr and its repetition at one sitting is un-Islamic, void and shall not be effective. This enabled them to not only marry these women but also retain their existing wives.

This misuse of religion by the unscrupulous husbands was reported to Caliph Hazrat Umar. To prevent abuse of Islamic law, Caliph Umar decreed that even repetition of the word talaq, talaq, talaq at one sitting would dissolve the marriage irrevocably. However, it was a little administrative measure, and he did not intend to make it a law permanently.

Unfortunately, the Hanafi jurists declared this form of divorce valid and also paved religious sanction to it.

Triple Talaq and Holy Quran

Triple talaq is a recognized but disapproved form of divorce. It commands neither the sanction of Holy Quran nor the approval of the Holy Prophet.

Muslim law rests on the four-fold pillars of the fiqh: the Holy Quran, the Sunnah (Hadiths), the Ijma and Qiyas. A ‘principle’ to become ‘law’ must find a place in the sources mentioned above. If the solution of a problem is given in the Quran, then it is the final ruling of Shari’ah. If there is no clear exposition in the Quran, we look at the traditions of the Prophet documented in the form of hadiths by his companions. If the problem has no solution in either of the two, then only resort is taken to Ijma. There is no Quranic basis to establish that the three pronouncements at one occasion would be treated as three divorces on an irrevocable footing.

A relevant verse of Qur'an says:

"A divorce is only permissible twice; after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms or separate with kindness." [2-229 Trans. By A. Yusuf Ali]

Nikah Halala

As stated by Prophet and narrated by Aisha:

 “Once a Muslim woman has been divorced by her husband thrice, she cannot remarry him unless and until she is married to another man who after compulsorily consummating the marriage divorces her so as to free her. It is only after this; she can marry her former husband.” [Sahih-Bukhari 63:186,187]

Nikah Halala is a law that requires a divorced woman to marry and sleep with another man in order to become ‘Halal’ (lawful) for her husband again.

In the midst of this, several websites and social media pages have emerged offering Halala marriage services to women who have been divorced by their first husbands. Such sites offer men who are willing to marry and sleep with the client (divorced Muslim woman) in exchange for a fee. Many women who approach these services are asked to pay large sums of money.

In 2016, a BBC reporter went undercover, posing as a divorced Muslim woman who was seeking a Halala marriage service through Facebook. She was asked to pay a sum of £2,500, for a bogus, temporary marriage where the man on the Facebook page offered to marry and sleep with her.

Women's Right to Divorce

Some so-called intellectuals and liberals of our country in order to mislead the unversed folk often argue that Islam also gives a woman the right to divorce her husband in the form of khula (a wife separating from her husband after returning a payment or consideration).

I wonder how can anyone equate Triple Talaq with Khula! A woman can ask khula from her husband at the cost of returning her mehr (dower) or giving something in consideration to him. She has to beg for Divorce and can seek divorce only at the mercy of her husband.

Triple Talaq and Part III of the Indian Constitution

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is a key provision in the protection of fundamental rights as it renders all Pre as well as Post constitutional laws void insofar as they violate any fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. It, however, requires the particular law to fall within the definition given in Article 13(3)(a).

Article 13 states that:

"law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.

It further states that:

"laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

Now you must be wondering why provisions of Muslim personal laws which are in derogation of party III of the Indian Constitution have not yet been repealed. This issue has been raised several times before the honourable Supreme Court as well as the Parliament, but none of them is willing to touch the Muslim personal laws.

In State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, the Court held that Personal Laws did not come within the ambit of law under Article 13(3)(a) and hence it cannot be tested on the touchstone of fundamental rights.

In Ahmedabad Women’s Action Group v. Union of India, Court held that it cannot interfere with personal laws as they are a matter of state policy.

Reasoning adopted by the learned judges was fallacious as the definition of the term law given in Article 13(3) is an inclusive definition and hence the omission or restrictive interpretation of 'custom or usages' cannot be sustained.

Observing that the judicial conscience is “disturbed”, the Allahabad High Court has held that triple talaq is “cruel” and raised a question whether the Muslim Personal law could be amended to alleviate the sufferings of Muslim women.

Triple talaq, ‘nikah halala’ and polygamy violate Muslim women’s right to equality and dignity guaranteed under Indian Constitution and are not protected by the right to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

Muslim Women in action against Triple Talaq

"He verbally gave me Triple Talaq for refusing to get an abortion, and I was left on the road to die" said Shagufta Shah, who has written a letter seeking help from Prime Minister Modi and sent copies to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the National Commission for Women as well as the District Magistrate.

Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala, and polygamy have been challenged before the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano vs. Union of India, with the demand that they are deemed unconstitutional. Supreme Court has recently constituted a five-judge Constitutional Bench to decide on the Constitutional validity of Triple Talaq, Nikah Halala, and Polygamy.

Defending its hidebound religious laws All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is opposing centre's move to oppose Triple Talaq in Supreme Court and urged SC to not to meddle with its personal laws.

I fail to understand, what stops our Judiciary from declaring personal laws as law under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution so that they can be tested on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Indian Constitution. Also, it's out of my wit to understand what stops our legislatures from codifying Muslim Personal laws and from declaring them a 'law' for the purposes of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution through a Constitutional Amendment!

It's evident from the history that every step towards reform had to face severe opposition and criticism from a class of patriarchal, narrow-minded, adamant folk. What are we afraid of? It's perturbing that in the twenty-first century when women are dreaming of achieving greater things in life, a class of women in our country is still struggling for her basic human rights! Laws such as triple Talaq, Polygamy and Nikah Halala are not only antediluvian, but they are also debilitating for Muslim women.