TRIPLE TALAQ: JUDGMENT AND TALK

TRIPLE TALAQ: JUDGMENT AND TALK

As we go to the supermarket, we have to disappoint those who thought that we could go to the highest level of judgment as we'd like to put on the basket and put it on the basket. The Sangh Parivar organizations moved the Supreme Court seeking six women to demand the repeal of the Shariah Act of 1937, only when it declared the three Talaq to be singled out in the singular. Not only did the intrigue plan come true, but we have received important judgments that judge that laws are fundamental to the fundamental rights of fundamental rights. We have witnessed a rare view that has been won by the advocate and the accused. The five-judge Constitutional Ben's three verdicts will only mean that each of the judgments will ensure their success, not just trying to learn the subject in a microscopic way. Moreover, many have forgotten that honored judge did not respond to the questions raised in front of them.
As Dr. Ahir Mahmood, who is known as the world's legal advocate on family law, points out the confusion with the present judgment. Chief Justice JJShahar, Chief Justice JJ Kharar and 30-page Juri Kurian Joseph in the 273 page, When RF Nariman narrowed their comments, it was more controversial than the synchronization. The answer to the question of why it happened is simple: the unanimous opinion of a religious subject was not easy. An analysis of the verdict also finds that the judgments include the experience of judges making various forms of resistance to the defense of the times of the minority.
The mother of the condemned
The women came to the Supreme Court like Syedabanu and Ishrat Jahan with the demand to ban Talaqulbid (tripletalakh), Nihal Halal (ceremony of wedding) and polygamy in Muslim communities. The judges were representing judges representing five different religions to impede the court's decision. The court heard the arguments for six days in the summer due to the immediate importance of the issue. It was the two most prominent and most prominent lawyers in the country. Senior advocates appearing for the Central Government have argued that the Indian secular system is not the same as the laws of the Shariah and that Muslim Sharia followers follow the Shariah law and that it is a violation of Article 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the tripletalakh Constitution. Chief Justice Khurra had initially stated that the cults and martial arts could be examined only after tripletalakh would be considered.
In three different judges, tripletalakh is not explicitly defined as unconstitutional. This system has been repealed as per majority rule. Chief Justice Khader and Justice AbdulNazeer issued a history story that the tripletalakh Islam is part of the Muslim League and that it involves the freedom of religion which offers 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

The practice of religion and faith can never be ruled out by the Constitution. Because of gender discrimination, a law can be eliminated. In six months, the court directed that a marriage law be set up by three Muslim husbands to marry such a law. Justice Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman and Uu Lalit disagree with the judgment, but the observations of his Chief Justice are irrelevant. At 25, he decided to declare this practice can ullatkeant to the contrary, such as the constitutional recognition of the religion of a person under the laws of freereligion come tripletalakh offered by paragraph order, patpetu kettakalatt to maintain this identity and culture are facing the challenge of opinions On the minorities are concerned, it is natural to feel the touch of palliative care. He writes: "Religion is a part of faith and can not be judged by reason."
"We must be careful not to cross our minds in the forefront of rituals and personalities. A court with the right objective can not claim to substitute for belief or avoid it altogether. Religion is faith and not reasonable. "Chief Justice JS underlines that reforms in religious practices should not be done by the government or the rationalists but are the true religion followers of religious practices.

The court is trying to uphold the law on the nature of religion. The proposal to put in place the lawmaking instead of the tripletalakh, indicates that the divorce issue has arisen as a matter of gender discrimination. The Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of the constitution are under Section 142 of the Constitution. AbdulNazeer also ordered the lawmaking. But Justice Kurien Joseph publicly expressed his opinion on this. Justice Nariman and Uu Lal and Kurien are in another way. That is the majority judgment. That is how the Chief Justice introduced a brief sentence to the judgment:
"Bidhaal Talaq has been canceled."

Shariah Law Scrutiny
It is doubtful that there has been a time when the Shariah Law in our country, known as Muslim Personal Law, has been subjected to accurate analysis. Justice Nariman asked the question whether a review of the judiciary could be possible. It is his opinion that the Shari'ah Act of 1937 is codified. The Hindu Marriage Act, as well as the laws related to personal laws, can be reinstated immediately after the judiciary. If that does not happen, the constitutional principles can not be properly checked. Before the Bombay High Court in 1952, when the dispute over the status of personalization, Justice MC Chagla ruled that it could not be included in the law specified in Article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution. The Shariah Law's hand is not at all far away from the court.

With a majority majority, fears that the coffin gate will be opened up so far. Thus, the Muslim Personal Law Board's claim that the court is not entitled to interfere with the fact that the paternal and other Islamic customs are part of the Shariah. The proclamation of the tripletalakh as prohibited was the same as that of the Qur'an.

Justice Nariman does not approve of the claim that the Shariah Act was brought in 1937 to avoid anti-Muslim sentiments and mumulants. The laws of 1937 have been pubertic and it is possible to examine whether the courts of the Indian courts can not be checked if they encounter Constitutional provisions as part of the Indian Court of Appeals. The court found that it was against the 14th Amendment proposing the equality and also the issue of gender discrimination. The reproof of religion is that the marriage of husband and wife must be reconciled with each mediator from the family. But the husband does not lose the opportunity to reconcile with the triumph or the three talaq together. This is against the fundamental principle of equality of justice. If you listen to the words of judgment, you will understand this.
Protection of individual law
The Supreme Court has directed the personal rights of the fundamental rights in the third part of the Constitution. The Chief Justice of Khammar has accepted the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's decision to take the initiative on the issue. These lines of judgment must be hanged on a chilly pedestal:
Personal law has constitutional protection. This protection is extended to personal law through article 25 of the constitution. It needs to be kept in mind, that the stature of personal law is a fundamental right.
This observation is supported by K. Kurien Joseph by his own judgment. Justice Nariman and Uu Simply explain that the decision is unanimous, as this is not the way of dissent.
It is unimaginable that the court rules the laws of the individual can not be said that the united civil code is arrogant and arrogant. The collapse of the Hindutva ideologues was to build a Uniform Civil Code by checking the civil codes protecting the identity and culture of minorities.
Judging by the fact that in the case of the Tribak, any other case related to the Tribak, which does not have the public civil code, has been the main reason for the whole cause of the judiciary.
Hindutva agenda and the future of Shri
The question of what to do after the tripletalakh verdict is no longer relevant. The fate of the constitutional bench that bans tripletalakh is celebrated as a historical event in the country
Hindutva agenda and the future of Shariath
The question of what to do after the tripletalakh verdict is no longer relevant. The constitutional Bench's fate is banned as a historic event, and the only issue faced by Muslim women in the country is behind the propaganda that three Talaq is being tortured together. For the gallows in the backdrop of the history, our media has been inspired by the gallows. But the tripletalakh case has been completely forgotten. This is not the case that started with Syrababan or Ishrat Jahano. But the division bench of the Supreme Court is a legal issue. A division bench comprising Justice AR Dave and Adhir Kumar Goel said that Muslim women who had written in the second part of the judgment had been discriminating and they were thirsting for justice. She asked the Chief Justice to register herself as 'The Thirst of Muslim Women for Equality'. Within days Sirabanu-Ishrat's court came to know that the Sangh Parivar's invisible qualities were moving well. It is a natural inspiration to return to the form of Talaq Ahzan (Talaq Talaq) and Talaq Hasan (better) as the Talaqulbida was banned. If you can block this without handless hands, it's as good. It is also a matter of how much time will wait for her to be free when the man is slaughtered by the law and then by losing one of the two men who have been forgiven. Not forbidden, the laws for the victims are always safe in a country