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 Ties between India and Japan are probably at their best ever, Japanese Ambassador to India H.E. Kenji Hiramatsu told India Review & Analysis’ Nilova Roy Chaudhury, as he outlined how the two countries have moved closer. Ahead of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit
 
read-more
The eight members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) should strengthen cooperation against terrorism and build it into its framework, India's External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said in New York on September 20.
 
read-more
That regional cooperation in South Asia is lower than optimal levels is well accepted. It is usually ascribed to – the asymmetry in size between India and the rest, conflicts and historical political tensions, a trust deficit, limited transport connectivity, and onerous logistics, among many other factors.
 
read-more
Reflections on September evoke a host of memories.
 
read-more
  During the budget session of the legislative assembly, the Chief Minister informed the  House about state’s missing children. According to her, as many as 162 children have gone missing in the past three years.
 
read-more
The Communist Party of China (CPC) is expected to amend its constitution at the upcoming national congress.
 
read-more
Finally breaking her silence on the Rohingya exodus, Myanmar’s state counsellor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has said that her government would like to understand the root causes of the refugee crisis and investigate charges of human rights abuses.
 
read-more
U.S. President Donald Trump’s opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is not new. But by choosing his first address at the UN General Assembly
 
read-more
It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.
 
read-more
Column-image

Title: A Bonsai Tree; Author: Narendra Luther; Publisher: Niyogi Books; Pages: 227 Many books have been written on India's partition but here is a firsthand account of the horror by a migrant from what is now Pakistan, who ...

 
Column-image

As talk of war and violence -- all that Mahatma Gandhi stood against -- gains prominence across the world, a Gandhian scholar has urged that the teachings of the apostle of non-violence be taken to the classroom.

 
Column-image

Interview with Hudson Institute’s Aparna Pande, whose book From Chanakya to Modi: Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy, was released on June 17.

 
Column-image

This is the continuing amazing spiritual journey of a Muslim man from Kerala who plunged into Vedic religion after a chance encounter with a Hindu mystic under a jackfruit tree in the backyard of his house when he was just nine. It is a story w...

 
Column-image

History is told by the victors but in our modern age, even contemporary events get - or are given - a slant, where some contributors soon get eclipsed from the narrative or their images tarnished.

 
Subscribe to our newsletter
Archive