Supreme Court was hearing a petition, amongst a batch, to border pointers for “uniform grounds of divorce for all citizens across the different faiths”. File
| Photo Credit: R.V. Moorthy
The Supreme Court on February 20 mentioned it should study how far it will possibly judicially intervene in making divorce proceedings gender and faith impartial whereas including a rider that it prima facie felt the federal government and legislature should take the decision finally.
“We will see how far the court can go,” Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noticed orally.
The Bench, nonetheless, added that it was for the “government to decide and not for the court to go into” points like “removing anomalies in the grounds of divorce and make them uniform for all citizens without prejudice on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”.
Explained | The Uniform Civil Code
The courtroom was hearing a petition, amongst a batch, filed by petitioner- advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, to border pointers for “uniform grounds of divorce for all citizens across the different faiths”.
The authorities, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, mentioned it had “no objections in principle to make the law gender neutral”.
However, it was for the courtroom to contemplate how far it may “judicially intervene” within the subject.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, showing for one of many events within the case, opposed the “omnibus suggestions” made in Mr. Upadhyay’s petition.
Mr. Sibal agreed with the courtroom’s prima facie view that the difficulty must be left to the legislature and the federal government to determine.
Also learn: A simply and equal code
“The court cannot be seen to be issuing even prima facie orders in this matter. It can send a kind of signal. This is entirely within the domain of the government and the legislature,” he contended.
The courtroom listed the case after four weeks. It has sought particulars of all the batch of separate petitions elevating diversified contentions.
One of the petitions issues the Muslim private regulation apply of talaq-e-hasan. Talaq-e-hasan is a type of divorce by which a Muslim man can divorce his spouse by saying ‘talaq’ as soon as each month over a three-month interval.
The petition, filed by journalist Benazeer Heena, has argued that talaq-e-hasan and “other forms of unilateral extra judicial talaq is an evil plague similar to sati”.
“Talaq-e-hasan is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 and international conventions on civil rights and human rights,” the petition has submitted.
It mentioned there must be a “gender neutral, religion neutral, uniform grounds of divorce and uniform procedure of divorce for all citizens”.
