We are collecting authors'profile. As soon as we get, we update it. Please note this is not official profile. The information including photo is collected from web.
| Contact |
| twitter |
| Linkedin |
...In the 2002 Shamim Ara case a two-judge bench of the Apex Court had delegitimised this medieval practice only when it was not properly pronounced and preceded by attempts at reconciliation. But the latest ruling completely and unconditionally invalidates talaq-e-bid’aand renders it bad in law. The Koranic procedure of talaq is the only way by which a Muslim husband will be able to divorce his wife from now on. It is time then to recap the judgment to chart out the next steps. The majority judgment The path that was taken to arrive at this landmark decision was tortuous, but intellectually invigorating. Justices R.F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit started off by correctly concluding that talaq-e-bid’a cannot be excluded from the definition of “talaq” mentioned in Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. ...The Hindu on Sept. 1, 2017, 11:12 p.m.
... It may have been an attempt to take forward Ramesh Venkataraman’s debate on religious reforms (‘Let’s talk to the Book’, IE, July 15). But Javed Anand’s ‘Islam’s reform: Way to go’ (IE, July 19) reads more like an imploration to Muslims to start questioning the authorship of the Quran and their belief in its infallibility. This is evident from the question, “how do you ‘read past’ any verse of the Quran if as a believing Muslim for you it is an absolute article of faith that the Quran is the Word of Allah?” The presumptions here are: Reform in Muslim societies is possible only if the Quran is not considered a divine book, and Islamic reform means a rejection of Quranic verses that are “bad”. ...Indian Express on Aug. 22, 2017, 2:25 a.m.
...But the judges have made it clear that they will be examining only triple talaq now. A case of misplaced priorities Media reports would have us believe that the issue of gender discrimination in the Muslim personal law reached the Supreme Court because of petitions filed by victims of instant talaq and polygyny. The truth, however, is that it was the apex court which had asked for the registration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in October 2015 to be put up before an appropriate Bench. Muslim individuals and groups impleaded themselves in the case only after the PIL was registered. Surprisingly, the case in which the PIL was ordered — Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 — had nothing to do with the Muslim law. It pertained to the rights of Hindu daughters under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. ...The Hindu on May 15, 2017, 11:20 p.m.
...Instead of a blanket ban, the Supreme Court can delegitimise polygyny in India for not being in consonance with the Koranic procedure, just as it invalidated instant triple talaq in the Shamim Ara case ...The Hindu on Oct. 28, 2016, 12:32 a.m.