FB   
 
Powered bysps
        Society for Policy Studies
 
 

 
Supreme Courtís Lost Chance
Updated:Aug 28, 2017
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 
By Chintan Chandrachud
 
On August 22, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a case challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of “instant triple talaq” by Muslim husbands. The case held significant opportunities for the Court. It was asked to decide if the practice violated the constitutional right to equality and protections against gender discrimination. Ahead of the judgment, it was widely anticipated that the Court would strike down the practice on the basis that it breached constitutional morality. It was also hoped that the Supreme Court would overturn a long-standing decision of the Bombay High Court effectively insulating personal laws from constitutional scrutiny. In spite of the majority of judges striking down the practice of instant triple talaq, the judgment did none of those things.
 
 
To be sure, the more accurate way of characterising the judgment is that some of the judges did do some of those things. But the danger of three separate opinions amongst a panel of five judges deciding a case is that the lowest common denominator prevails. In this case, the lowest common denominator was that the practice of instant triple talaq was not integral to Islam, and was therefore unprotected by the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Court decided the case on an interpretation of religious texts rather than constitutional provisions.
 
 
The most striking implication of the Court’s judgment is that it effectively signalled that triple talaq and other religious practices would be scrutinised through the lens of religion rather than the right to equality. The battle for equality will, as a result, continue to be waged in the language of religion rather than the language of rights. There is another particularly disquieting feature of judges adjudicating upon the significance of religious practices. The Court opens itself up to uncomfortable questions of institutional and individual competence.
 
 
The dissenting opinion alluded to this in no uncertain terms. Citing four high court cases that held that triple talaq was integral to Islam, the opinion stated that all of those cases were decided by “Sunni Muslims, belonging to the Hanafi school” which “cannot be considered an outsider’s view” of Islam. This criticism of the majority’s opinion, decided by judges of different faiths, is hardly subtle. Investigating the legitimacy of this criticism is for another day. But transforming the language of argument from religious texts to constitutional rights would alleviate it considerably, for all judges are equally “outsiders” (or insiders) on questions of fundamental rights. Yet, with the Court’s decision, the bench composition in cases involving personal law will become more significant than ever before.
 
 
Perhaps the greatest success of the majority opinions is that they avoided the situation that would have arisen had the dissenting opinion prevailed. In spite of holding the practice of triple talaq constitutionally valid, the dissenting opinion — recognising the injustices associated with the practice — was willing to decouple the constitutional right from the remedy. More specifically, the opinion would have imposed a six-month injunction to enable Parliament to enact legislation on the subject. The injunction would continue if appropriate legislation was introduced in Parliament within that time frame.
 
 
This outcome would have been not only constitutionally suspect, but also pragmatically unsound. The Supreme Court lacks the authority to direct Parliament to enact legislation. The dissenting opinion’s justification — that the Union government adopted an “aggressive” position in the case — mistakenly conflates Parliament and government. More significantly, the Court would have been aware that its exhortations to Parliament in several previous cases have fallen upon deaf ears, eroding its authority. It is not difficult to see why in the game of modern politics, governments in India (and elsewhere) see it in their interests to defer difficult decisions to Courts. The dissenting opinion should have acknowledged that the incentive structures simply do not line up for governments to push controversial legislation through Parliament.
 
 
The legacy of the case will likely be one of missed opportunities. It is legitimate for us to expect more from a constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court.
 
 
 
 
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 

Disclaimer: South Asia Monitor does not accept responsibility for the views or ideology expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears on its site. What it does accept is responsibility for giving it a chance to appear and enter the public discourse.
Comments (Total Comments 0) Post Comments Post Comment
Review
 
 
 
 
spotlight image Thailand will be the coordinating country for India within ASEAN from July. In an exclusive interview with INDIA REVIEW & ANALYSIS, the fortnightly journal of the Society for Policy Studies (SPS),  Thailand’s Ambassador to India, Chutintorn Gongsakdi, gave a comprehensive view of bilateral relations and
 
read-more
The struggle for autonomy has been going on within the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) from their inception, writes P.D. Rai
 
read-more
As India and the 10-nation ASEAN bloc culminate the commemoration of 25 years of their dialogue partnership with a summit in New Delhi January 25 that all the leaders will attend, India is laying out the crimson carpet to ensure that the first ever Republic Day celebrations at which 10 ASEAN leaders will be Chief Guests, jointly, is a
 
read-more
Afghanistan's leaders have asked the Security Council to mobilise international pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting terrorists, United States Permanent Representative said on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters here after the Council's weekend visit to Afghanistan and meetings with the nation's leaders, Haley said, &l
 
read-more
As the Myanmar government’s violent policy towards its Rohingya Muslims drew increasing international condemnation in 2016, the country’s sometime icon of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, declined to speak out for the persecuted minority.
 
read-more
“We have a very solid commitment to climate action,” he said. “We cannot be defeated by climate change and we are not yet winning this battle” and the biggest victims of climate change are the developing countries that are members of the Group of 77 (G77).
 
read-more
In a bid to promote trilateral innovation and business opportunities between the US, India, and Israel, Israel-India Technology Group has launched a trilateral fund of $50 million. "We ar...
 
read-more
Column-image

The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has for the first time claimed responsibility for the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in a new book in written by Taliban leader Abu Mansoor Asim Mufti Noor Wali.

 
Column-image

Title: Salafi-Jihadism -The History of an Idea; Author: Shiraz Maher; Publisher: Penguin Random House UK: Pages: 292; Price: Rs 499

 
Column-image

A Review of Anatomy of Failure by Harlan K. Ullman (Naval Institute Press, 242 pages)

 
Column-image

Title: The Beckoning Isle; Author: Abhay Narayan Sapru; Publisher: Wisdom Tree; Pages: 157; Price: Rs 245

 
Column-image

Title: India Now And In Transition; Editor: Atul Thakur ; Publisher: Niyogi Books: Pages: 448; Price: Rs 599