The Supreme Court observed the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan which was mentioned before a vacation bench for urgent listing. A petition was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Muslim Personal Law Practise.
The petitioner argued before the court that the practise is arbitrary and is a violation of Article 14, Article 15, Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional as the practise is discriminatory since only men can exercise the same and seeks a declaration. As it is not an essential practice of Islamic faith, according to the petitioner.
the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had refused to grant urgent listing for the plea on 09.05.2022.
by pronouncing “talaq” once a month for three months, a Muslim man can divorce his wife as per Talaq-E-Hasan.
Ms. Anand submitted that as on April 19, first noticed was issued and Now second notice has been issued and he further submitted that we are challenging the proceedings and hence for Talaq E Hasan, a notice have been issued through lawyer.
The bench led by Justice Chandrachud further remarked that “Why under Article 32?”.
Ms. Anand submitted that the Talaq-E-Hasan was left out and the only issue of Talaq E Biddat was considered was considered in Shayra Bano.
Justice Chandrchud further remarked that there is no urgency and We will keep it on the re-opening day after vacations.
As it will be over, she has received the second notice on 05.19.2022 and on 06.20.2022.
She has received the second notice on May 19 and on June 20 it will be over”
on May 19 and on June 20 she has received the second notice and by the time it will be over as by that time everything third talaq will be given and everything will be over.
The bench led by Justice Chandrachud further remarked that there is no urgency as the first notice issued was on April 19 and wait for a period to come here.
Ms. Anand submitted further submitted that it is about a woman being abused and by reopening everything will be over.
On which Justice Chandrachud further remarked to take his chance and mention it next week.
The Vacation Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the Justice Bela Trived contended that the petitioner has received the second notice of talq as the Public Interest Litigation petition filed by Senior Advocate Pinky Anand