What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The recent ruling by the Madras High Court’s Madurai bench, which declared that the Shariat Council is not a court and cannot issue divorce certificates, marks a significant step towards upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of women. This decision, which emphasizes that only state-constituted courts can deliver judgments, is a timely reprimand that underscores the importance of legal processes in matters of personal law.
The case in question involved a Muslim doctor couple who married in 2010. The husband sought a divorce through the Shariat Council in 2017, which issued a divorce certificate. However, the wife disputed the validity of the talaq, leading to a legal battle that culminated in the High Court’s ruling.
Justice G R Swaminathan, who presided over the case, criticized the Shariat Council’s actions, describing the issuance of the divorce certificate as “shocking.” He reiterated that the Shariat Council is a private body and not a court, and therefore, it cannot issue divorce certificates or enforce penalties. This ruling is a crucial reminder that personal laws must operate within the framework of the Constitution and the legal system.
The court’s decision also highlighted the emotional and psychological impact of such unilateral actions on women. The judge noted that the husband’s act of bigamy caused considerable emotional distress and pain to the wife, amounting to cruelty. This observation is particularly important as it acknowledges the often-overlooked emotional toll of such disputes on women.
Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the principle that all citizens, regardless of their religion, are subject to the same legal standards. Justice Swaminathan pointed out that if a Hindu, Christian, Parsi, or Jewish husband contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, it would constitute cruelty and an offence of bigamy. The same principle applies to Muslims. This assertion is a significant step towards ensuring equality before the law and protecting the rights of women across all communities.
The High Court’s decision also serves as a call to action for the legal system to address the gaps and inconsistencies in the application of personal laws. It underscores the need for a uniform civil code that ensures equal protection and rights for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations. Such a code would help eliminate the ambiguities and disparities that often arise in the interpretation and application of personal laws.
