The debate against Muslim personal law is heating up day by day and doesn’t seem to end. It seems that the judiciary and the government want to maintain a kind of constant pressure on Muslims through statements and endless criticism on the Muslim personal law. The latest episode of this series is the statement of a single judge bench of Justice Suneet Kumar of Allahabad High Court. In its fiercest criticism, the high court bench said that Triple Talaq violates human rights. Coming down heavily on triple talaq, the court called it “most demeaning” and “impedes and drags India from becoming a nation”. The court added that it is the Constitution of India that is supreme and not the Muslim personal law.

This is despite the fact that the issue of triple talaq and polygamy is already under hearing in the Supreme Court of India and several bodies including the govt. of India and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) are parties to this case. Despite this, expression of opinion by a lower court in this matter is against the norms as well as against the rule.

As far as this statement of the single judge bench of Allahabad High Court is concerned that triple talaq is unconstitutional and that Muslim Personal Law is not above the constitution, this in itself is not only in contradiction to the constitution of India but also tantamount to declaring itself to be above the Indian Constitution. It is because the constitution whose supremacy is being upheld by honorable judge, the same constitution has granted the followers of all the religions in India the right to follow personal laws of their own respective religion. Hence how the comments of a single or several judge bench of any court could be held effective against the constitutional rights? However, legislation in any matter or allowing or prohibiting anything falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts, let alone nullify rights which belong to the category of fundamental rights. Hence, the legislation is Parliament’s responsibility. The business of the courts is to interpret and apply the law and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes.

Add to that, the chairman of the Law Commission BS Chauhan reiterated last month that each religion would continue to have its personal laws. In an interview to India Today he said that by Uniform Civil Code they mean that there should be no gender discrimination or injustice, and that the court may not necessarily seek standardization of personal laws.

But here again the question arises whether the abrogation of triple talaq will bring an end to gender discrimination. This question is important here because whether the talaq has been uttered thrice or once, it will remain one sided. Even some circles in Muslims who are in favor of abrogation of triple talaq think that government just wants to abrogate triple talaq and want to legalise single talaq ‘talaq ahsan’ which is a good move. This is only their illusion, because the actual agenda of the government and the judiciary is that they want to abrogate the unilateral divorce (whether thrice or once) and want to take away the right to divorce from individuals and grant in to the courts, as it has been made in the case of followers of other religions to obtain divorce.

As far as the Muslim strategy with regard to the Muslim Personal Law is concerned, Muslims too should now need to abandon their defensive policy, and be determined to use their constitutional rights fully. Since Muslims and other religious communities have got the constitutional right to follow their own personal laws, Muslims and other religious minorities should demand the government to appoint scholars of their own religion who are well versed in matters of their personal laws as well as its spirit to hear and settle the cases related to their respective personal laws. No one could stop us from putting such a demand before the government, because it is our constitutional right. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board should take initiative in this regard.