A Law Student's Contention

Well, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 a.k.a Instant Triple Talaq Bill which is a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India has been passed by the Lok Sabha with an overwhelming majority. Supreme Court, in that case, held that instant Triple Talaq ( Talaq-e-Biddat) is unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary for women. Further, Justice Khehar in his minority opinion directed the government to legislate on the subject of triple talaq within six months. Government obediently pretending to be acting under the direction of Supreme Court (though direction was given in minority opinion) drafted this controversial bill which has been ambushed by many scholars, experts, and political parties. This article highlights the real and the alleged issues with the bill and also does a political and legal analysis of it (you cannot separate law from politics, can you?). The statement of objects and reasons of the bill states that

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—  because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. These lines by Martin Niemöller always make me pray that something bad happens with those bystanders who witness lynching in broad daylight, murder in the middle of the road and do nothing. That someday someone comes for them, they adjure for help, people hear them and yet no one responds. This should happen with each and every one of them, maybe including myself because as is famously remarked ‘ watching a crime take place and doing nothing about is as heinous as the crime itself.’ Today, we are celebrating International Human Rights Day yet again, on the same day we have been celebrating since 1948 and nothing much has changed, h