What's new

SC: If sati can be banned, why not polygamy ?

Styx

BANNED
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
-14
Country
India
Location
India
Observing that Muslim personal law does not safeguard women's rights against arbitrary divorce and polygamy, the supreme court has asked the CJI to set up a bench to to look into the issue, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.

A bench comprising justices A R Dave and A K Goes said that polygamy was " injurious to public morals" and could be banned just as sati was.

Supreme Court to examine validity of Muslim divorce, polygamy

NEW DELHI: With Muslim women at a disadvantage under the Muslim Personal Law with no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and polygamy, the Supreme Court has now decided to examine the validity of such practices saying that it amounts to violation of women's fundamental rights.

A bench of Justices A R Dave and A K Goel said laws dealing with marriage and succession are not part of religion and the Muslim Personal Law has to evolve with the changing times. The bench said it is high time for the judiciary to examine these issues which the court had earlier refrained from venturing into on the ground that it was a policy matter to be decided by the government and the legislature. It said these are not merely a policy matter but relate to protection of fundamental rights of Muslim women guaranteed by the Constitution. Referring to an earlier apex court verdict, the bench said practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be banned just like the practice of sati was banned.

"It was pointed out that in spite of Constitutional guarantee, Muslim women are subjected to discrimination. There is no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her," the bench said.

READ ALSO

No decision yet on SC's poser to Centre on Uniform Civil Code
"In Javed vs State of Haryana, a Bench of three judges observed that practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be superseded by the state just as practice of 'sati'. It was further observed that conduct rules providing for monogamy irrespective of religion are valid and could not be struck down on the ground of violation of personal law of Muslims," the bench said.

The court passed the order while adjudicating a woman's plea seeking share in ancestral property of her father under the Hindu Succession Act. During the hearing of the case, the lawyers pointed out the discrimination faced by Muslim women in matrimonial disputes.

Taking suo motu cognisance of alleged discrimination faced by women under Muslim Personal Law, the court ordered that matter be treated as PIL and asked the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to look into the issue of gender discrimination under Muslim Personal Law.

READ ALSO

Don't impose code, just tweak personal law: Muslim women
"It is pointed out that the matter needs consideration by this court as the issue relates not merely to a policy matter but to fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants," it said.

The bench said that a Constitution bench earlier did not address the issue of discrimination under Personal Law but it held that Article 21 included right to live with dignity which supports the plea that a Muslim woman could invoke fundamental rights in such matters.

The SC bench issued notice to attorney general and National Legal Services Authority seeking their response on the issue.

Supreme Court to examine validity of Muslim divorce,polygamy - The Times of India
 
. .
Oppressing women is not nice, yet I'd rather be oppressed than be burnt alive. :p: Just accept the fact that Hindu practices were far more barbaric and not comparable to the lesser injustice of the Abrahamic religions!

A more logical (and thus less Indian) argument would be, if polygyny is allowed, why not polyandry? Now that's gender equality!
 
.
"In Javed vs State of Haryana, a Bench of three judges observed that practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be superseded by the state just as practice of 'sati'. It was further observed that conduct rules providing for monogamy irrespective of religion are valid and could not be struck down on the ground of violation of personal law of Muslims," the bench said.

Valid observations of the court.

The Govt by itself would never initiate such a change , the fear of losing votes would be too large.

I am glad the court is questioning the validity of such exploitative practices.
 
.
Baby youre the one but allowed to hain na chaar :enjoy:
 
.
Observing that Muslim personal law does not safeguard women's rights against arbitrary divorce and polygamy, the supreme court has asked the CJI to set up a bench to to look into the issue, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.

A bench comprising justices A R Dave and A K Goes said that polygamy was " injurious to public morals" and could be banned just as sati was.

Supreme Court to examine validity of Muslim divorce, polygamy

NEW DELHI: With Muslim women at a disadvantage under the Muslim Personal Law with no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and polygamy, the Supreme Court has now decided to examine the validity of such practices saying that it amounts to violation of women's fundamental rights.

A bench of Justices A R Dave and A K Goel said laws dealing with marriage and succession are not part of religion and the Muslim Personal Law has to evolve with the changing times. The bench said it is high time for the judiciary to examine these issues which the court had earlier refrained from venturing into on the ground that it was a policy matter to be decided by the government and the legislature. It said these are not merely a policy matter but relate to protection of fundamental rights of Muslim women guaranteed by the Constitution. Referring to an earlier apex court verdict, the bench said practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be banned just like the practice of sati was banned.

"It was pointed out that in spite of Constitutional guarantee, Muslim women are subjected to discrimination. There is no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her," the bench said.

READ ALSO

No decision yet on SC's poser to Centre on Uniform Civil Code
"In Javed vs State of Haryana, a Bench of three judges observed that practice of polygamy is injurious to public morals and can be superseded by the state just as practice of 'sati'. It was further observed that conduct rules providing for monogamy irrespective of religion are valid and could not be struck down on the ground of violation of personal law of Muslims," the bench said.

The court passed the order while adjudicating a woman's plea seeking share in ancestral property of her father under the Hindu Succession Act. During the hearing of the case, the lawyers pointed out the discrimination faced by Muslim women in matrimonial disputes.

Taking suo motu cognisance of alleged discrimination faced by women under Muslim Personal Law, the court ordered that matter be treated as PIL and asked the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to look into the issue of gender discrimination under Muslim Personal Law.

READ ALSO

Don't impose code, just tweak personal law: Muslim women
"It is pointed out that the matter needs consideration by this court as the issue relates not merely to a policy matter but to fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants," it said.

The bench said that a Constitution bench earlier did not address the issue of discrimination under Personal Law but it held that Article 21 included right to live with dignity which supports the plea that a Muslim woman could invoke fundamental rights in such matters.

The SC bench issued notice to attorney general and National Legal Services Authority seeking their response on the issue.

Supreme Court to examine validity of Muslim divorce,polygamy - The Times of India

SC has hit the nail. This sort of arbitary law was made just to fecelitate Mullahs. How can you make any law in civil society just to please mullahs. If this is the law than Muslim women should also have the right to have 4 husband. Our political elite do not have the stuff to deal with It . We have to to be dependent of SC on each small issues to correct our wrongs.
 
. .
Oppressing women is not nice, yet I'd rather be oppressed than be burnt alive. :p: Just accept the fact that Hindu practices were far more barbaric and not comparable to the lesser injustice of the Abrahamic religions!

A more logical (and thus less Indian) argument would be, if polygyny is allowed, why not polyandry? Now that's gender equality!

Sati was only practiced in 1 state rajasthan in india and that has been abolished from decades now as for barbaric u have world opened in front of u try some neutral sites u will be shocked which religion is thought to be barbaric in present times
 
. .
If govt doesn't bring UCC then SC will be forced ,one simply cannot let religious courts function affecting the lives of ppl by what they consider acceptable norm,its against the constitution.
 
.
Sati was only practiced in 1 state rajasthan in india and that has been abolished from decades now as for barbaric u have world opened in front of u try some neutral sites u will be shocked which religion is thought to be barbaric in present times

Nop, it was a pretty popular practice among you guys:
Wikipeda said:
Mention of the practice can be dated back to the 4th century BC,[4] while evidence of practice by wives of dead kings only appears beginning between the 5th and 9th centuries AD. The practice is considered to have originated within the warrior aristocracy on the Indian subcontinent, gradually gaining in popularity from the 10th century AD and spreading to other groups from the 12th through 18th century AD.

Has been abolished, but not by choice - you were forced to abolish by a civilized foreign bunch. ;)
 
. .
more mullahs do it then normal humans


In terms of percentage of marriages ?

Let me put it this way , how many mullahs & non mullahs ( %) have more than one wife ?

I presume the younger generation would not be following this practice .
 
.
In terms of percentage of marriages ?

Let me put it this way , how many mullahs & non mullahs ( %) have more than one wife ?

I presume the younger generation would not be following this practice .
Before marriage i had aim to marry 4 beautiful girl :D but when i get married i realise how fool i was ek bhi ker ke ghalti ki lolz :D
 
.
A more logical (and thus less Indian) argument would be, if polygyny is allowed, why not polyandry? Now that's gender equality!

Ever heard of Draupadi in the Mahabharat? It was uncommon but not unknown.

Oppressing women is not nice, yet I'd rather be oppressed than be burnt alive. :p: Just accept the fact that Hindu practices were far more barbaric and not comparable to the lesser injustice of the Abrahamic religions!

You have no idea just how quite rare Sati was before the islamic invasion of India and that it was completely external to Hindu scripture It was more of a warrior code to prevent rape/mistreatment/enslavement of widows in a battle environment...that later gained some notion of popularity outside of the original practitioners for various reasons - that have been conveniently lumped into "religion" by the same arrogant Abrahamic people you are trying to compare with.

Are you going to say the Tamil practice of Thalaikoothal (old age euthanasia) is also a Hindu one...or a social practice who's origins and practice often have a multitude of reasons?

Also does banning a more severe injustice to women mean a less severe injustice (but an injustice all the same) is ok to let continue?

The difference lies in that one was never codified and demanded complete blind allegiance to by practitioners of a religion (which Hinduism never was and never will be in the Abrahamic sense)....whereas the other one (polygamy) is straight from the texts of the Koran itself...even codifying 4 as the maximum wives a man can have...(why not 5 or 6?...or 3?)

Now find me a verse in any Hindu scripture that says a Man's wife MUST die on the funeral pyre of her husband....in the same codified way that an Abrahamic religion does.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom