Shia Waqf Board has sought a minimum of 10 year rigorous imprisonment for instant triple talaq.
Shia Waqf Board President, Wasim Rizvi, has said that he has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this regard. In a press statement, he also condemned the Muslim Personal Law Board’s opposition to the Triple Talaq Bill.
Earlier in the day, the government tabled the bill in Lok Sabha to make instant triple talaq illegal with up to three years in jail for the husband, calling it a "historic day" for Muslim women amid mixed support from the opposition.
Fulfilling its electoral promise, the BJP-led government moved swiftly to draft the legislation following a Supreme Court order in August, striking down the practice as illegal. It had asked the government to come up with a legislation within six months.
"It is a historic day. We are making history today," Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told the House after tabling the bill.
While not everyone was happy, especially regional and Muslim parties, the Congress said it supports the bill but with strengthened safeguards for divorced Muslim women. It asked for the bill to be sent to a Standing Committee, instead of being voted on today itself.
Members from RJD, AIMIM, BJD, AIADMK and All India Muslim League opposed the bill, saing it is arbitrary in nature and a faulty proposal.
AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi said Parliament lacks the legislative competence to pass the law as it violated fundamental rights.
Taking a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Owaisi said that while the bill talks only about Muslim women being abandoned, the government should also worry about nearly 20 lakh women of various religions who are abandoned by their husbands, "including our bhabhi from Gujarat."
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill would only be applicable on instant triple talaq or 'talaq-e- biddat' and gives power to the victim to approach a magistrate seeking "subsistence allowance" for herself and minor children.
The woman can also seek the custody of her minor children from the magistrate who will take a final call on the issue.
Under the law, instant triple talaq in any form -- spoken, in writing or by electronic means such as email, SMS and WhatsApp -- would be illegal and void.
The proposed law would be applicable to the entire country except in Jammu and Kashmir. It would make instant talaq punishable by a jail term of upto three years and a fine, and would be a cognisable, non-bailable offence.
Members from Congress and the Left were not allowed to speak on the bill as they had not given notice. SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav was also seen opposing the bill.
Although Congress supported the bill, senior leader Salman Khurshid, a former law minister, said the proposed law is an intrusion into the personal lives of individuals, and would bring the civil issue of divorce into the realm of criminal law.
The TMC, which had opposed the draft bill earlier, was silent. JPN Yadav of RJD questioned the proposed three-year jail term. Muslim League's E T Mohammed Bashir said the proposed law was violative of personal laws and was a politically motivated move.
B Mahtab (BJD) said while he would not talk about the merits of the bill, its framing was "faulty and "flawed". He said if the proposed law makes the practice of instant triple talaq illegal and void, how can a person be jailed for pronouncing 'talaq-e-biddat'.
Soon after the introduction of the bill was approved, Prasad wondered whether Parliament can remain silent if the fundamental rights of women were being trampled upon.
He said the legislation was not aimed against any religion but was framed to provide a sense of justice, security and honour to women.
He said the law was required as even after the Supreme Court had struck down the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' in August, it was continuing. He claimed that as recently as today, a woman in Rampur was given instant triple talaq by her husband for getting up late.
Parliament has to decide whether the victims of triple talaq have fundamental rights or not, he said after some opposition members claimed it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
