Muslim board against triple talaq

NEW DELHI, May 19: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it did not want the practice of triple talaq to continue, and would issue an advisory against it.
The submission came just before the hearing on the Constitutional validity of triple talaq, Deccan Herald reported.
“We have held a meeting on Wednesday and will send a circular to all the qazis within a week to mention in the nikahnama that it would not be permitted,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar.
A nikahnama is an Islamic marriage contract or prenuptial agreement.
The board had earlier admitted triple talaq was “sinful and undesirable” but defended it, saying it had flourished for 1,400 years. In his concluding arguments on behalf of the board, Sibal cautioned the apex court not to take the “dangerous and slippery slope”.
He said it was not the domain of the court to declare the practice illegal or unconstitutional.
The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and S Abdul Nazeer, reserved its judgement after wrapping up the six-day hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq.
The court asked the counsel when the board was going to issue directions to the clerics, and if it was willing to submit details in an affidavit.
When the counsel agreed to file an affidavit as early as possible, the petitioners expressed their reservations. They said such an advisory would have little effect on the ground. 
The court had earlier asked the board if the women could insist on a condition in the nikahnama that the husband would not deploy triple talaq.
Countering Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi’s argument that triple talaq had to be tested on the principle of equity, good conscience and Constitutional morality, Sibal said such an examination could not take place in the absence of a relevant law.
“It is for the legislature to pass a law which can be tested on the principle of constitutional morality. Otherwise my right is protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution,” he said. The article enshrines the right to practise, profess and propagate religion.
“So bring a law if you want some social reforms. There is a process, follow the process.The court is not to decide what are the sinful practices in the world. Lots of sinful practices are still protected as customs,” Sibal said.
His contention that the women have accepted the practice was opposed with a loud “no no no” in the courtroom by counsel representing affected women.