New Delhi | The controversial Muslim Women Bill to penalize the practice of instant triple talaq was passed in Lok Sabha bill today
Out of total 256 votes casted on the Muslim Women Bill (Triple Talaq), 245 votes were counted in support of the bill while 11 were casted in against. All 4 amendment introduced by AIMIM MP Assaduddin Owaisi were rejected during the voting in the Lok Sabha. In protest of the proposed bill both Congress and AIADMK staged their walkout from the Lok Sabha.
Union minister Smriti Irani speaking during the debate on the bill said if Parliament can enact laws to ban dowry and the practice of sati, it can also approve the bill to ban instant triple talaq. She slammed the Congress saying it missed opportunities to bring a similar law when in power.
Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Thursday during the discussion over the Triple Talaq bill in the Lok Sabha said that around 20 islamic countries have banned Triple Talaq then why cant a secular country like India. He further added that the bill should not be seen through the “prism of politics” but of humanity.
A fresh Bill to make the practice of triple talaq among Muslims a penal offence was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17 to replace an ordinance issued in September. Under the proposed law, giving instant triple talaq will be illegal and void and will attract a jail term of three years for the husband. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 would supersede an earlier Bill passed in the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha.
An earlier bill was approved by the Lower House. But amid opposition by some parties in the Upper House, the government had cleared some amendments, including the introduction of a provision of bail, to make it more palatable. But as the Bill continued to face resistance in the Rajya Sabha, the government issued an ordinance in September, incorporating amendments.
In a landmark 3-2 verdict in August last year, the Supreme Court found the practice of “triple talaq” un-Islamic and “arbitrary”, and disagreed that it was an integral part of religious practices.