The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed Talaq-e-Hasan as a “gross discriminatory” practice, while mulling over striking it down.
The top court was hearing a series of petitions, including one by journalist Benazeer Heena in 2022. Heena, in her plea, is seeking the declaration of the practice as unconstitutional, while arguing that it is irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution, Bar and Bench reported.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant noted that this issue goes beyond individual disputes, and concerns the “society at large”.
What is the Talaq-e-Hasan practice? Why did the SC criticise it?
Under the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan, a Muslim man is allowed to divorce his wife by pronouncing “talaq” once a month for three months.
The apex court stated that the practice in its present form cannot be allowed to continue in a modern and civilised society, while noting that it must either be regulated or struck down altogether to safeguard the dignity of women.
The SC is examining the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan. The top court had earlier struck down Talaq-e-Biddat or triple talaq in 2017, while calling it “manifestly arbitrary.”
Talaq-e-Hasan is different from Talaq-e-Biddat in that in the latter, divorce is granted instantly and there is no room for reconciliation. In the former, the talaq is pronounced once a month for three months.
SC flags the manner of execution of practice
{{/usCountry}}Talaq-e-Hasan is different from Talaq-e-Biddat in that in the latter, divorce is granted instantly and there is no room for reconciliation. In the former, the talaq is pronounced once a month for three months.
SC flags the manner of execution of practice
{{/usCountry}}While criticising the practice in general, the SC also questioned the manner in which it had been executed in some cases.
The bench took exception to an instance wherein the husband of one of the petitioners had authorised his advocate to issue the talaq notice rather than do it himself. The bench said that this method is questionable even under the personal law.
The bench questioned why the husband was not “directly writing” to the petitioner. “Does he have such an ego that even for divorce he cannot speak to her? How are you promoting this kind of practice in modern society? Whatever best religious practice we follow, is this what we allow?” the SC asked.
It further mentioned that the practice went against the dignity of women, asking whether it should be allowed in a civilised society.