NEW DELHI, 29 JAN

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to furnish data on FIRs and chargesheets against men who invoked instant triple talaq to divorce their wives in violation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights in Marriage) Act, 2019.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing about 12 petitions filed by various Muslim individuals and organisations challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 Act that criminalises the practice of instant triple talaq.

“The respondent (Centre) shall file the total number of FIRs and chargesheets pending under Section 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act 2019. The parties to also file written submissions not exceeding three pages in support of their contention,” the bench said.

It asked the Centre and other parties to file written submissions to the pleas while the posting the matter for final hearing in the week commencing 17 March.

Referring to the legal position, the bench said as triple talaq was held invalid, there was no dissolution of marriage and the point now was the criminalisation of the pronouncement.

"If the divorce itself is not recognised, the relationship then continues and no separation. But now you have penalised the very act of pronouncing it....we want the list of cases all over India where FIRs are led, now in all states FIRs are centralised, just give us a list of that," the CJI said.

The list was directed to include data from rural areas.

"In no civilised section, such a practice is there," said solicitor general Tushar Mehta.

The bench said the petitioners were not arguing for making triple talaq valid but opposed its criminalisation.

“I am sure none of the lawyers here are saying that the practice is correct, but what they are saying is whether it can be criminalised when the practice is banned and no divorce can take place by uttering talaq three times at once," the CJI said.

The bench said as triple talaq was legally void, the law effectively penalised mere pronouncement of the words “talaq” thrice -- the bone of contention in the ongoing legal challenge.

Mehta defended the legislation saying penalising an activity fell within the domain of legislative policy.

He opposed the argument that the Act imposed disproportionate punishment, saying the maximum sentence under the law was three years, lower than penalties in other laws protecting women’s rights.

The law officer quoted eminent poetess Parveen Shakir from Pakistan to highlight the bane of instant triple talaq as saying, "Talaq to de rahe ho itab-o-kehar ke saath, meri jawani bhi lauta do meri mehr ke saath’ (You are pronouncing talaq in a fit of rage, please return my youth along with mehr).”

Petitioner's counsel Nizam Pasha said the law unjustly criminalised the mere utterance of words, talaq, equating it with punishable offenses.

He said no other community faced similar legal consequences for marital abandonment.

Senior advocate M R Shamshad said existing domestic violence laws sufficiently addressed issues arising out of marital disputes, making the separate criminal law unnecessary.

“In matrimonial cases, even if a wife is physically assaulted, it takes months to register an FIR. Here, an FIR is lodged for mere pronouncement,” he said.

Mehta argued the law aligned with the broader principles of legal accountability, citing Section 506 of IPC, which penalised certain forms of verbal threats.

He said the criminalisation of triple talaq served a necessary deterrent purpose.

The bench said even after pronouncing triple talaq, a Muslim husband and wife remain legally married, as the practice did not constitute a valid divorce.

“If the divorce itself is not recognised, the relationship continues. But now, you have penalised the very act of pronouncing it,” the CJI said as he referred to petitioners’ concerns about the law’s necessity.

The bench said the challenge to the law was not about defending triple talaq as a valid practice but questioning whether criminal penalties were justified when the practice had already been declared unconstitutional.

Section 3 of the Act declares triple talaq as void and illegal whereas Section 4 prescribes a punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment for a Muslim husband who pronounces it.

The petitioners, including Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulama, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, and the Muslim Advocates Association (Andhra Pradesh), argued the law unfairly targeted a specific religious community.

Instant 'triple talaq', also known as 'talaq-e-biddat'.

In a landmark verdict, the apex court on 22 August, 2017 held as invalid the 1,400-year-old practice of "triple talaq" among Muslims while setting it aside on several grounds, including it was against the basic tenets of Quran and violated the Islamic law Shariat.