AIMPLB meet on Triple Talaq Bill and Ayodhya on August 17

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has convened a meeting on August 17 to chalk out its strategy on the ongoing court hearing in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janma Bhoomi land dispute and on challenging the triple talaq Bill in the Supreme Court.

The meeting to be held in New Delhi would be attended by a battery of Muslim lawyers, including senior advocate Yusuf Hatim Muchala of Mumbai High Court and AIMPLB office-bearers. “We will take a call on whether to move the apex court on the TT Bill or wait-and-watch till someone else challenges it in the court and then become an intervenor in the case,” said senior Allahabad High Court lawyer and AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani.

On the ongoing hearing in the Ayodhya case, Jilani said so far the Hindu litigants had not been able to furnish any documentary evidence about their possession of the disputed land before the apex court. “This is why they (Hindu litigants) are now trying to divert attention by levying frivolous and baseless charges against Muslim petitioners saying that they want to delay the hearing,” he said. Referring to senior advocate from Muslim side Rajeev Dhavan’s objection over five-days-a-week hearing and the plea that he would not be able to assist the court if the case is “rushed through,” Jilani said adding that the media was blowing the issue out of proportion.

“It was a perfectly normal thing to say as we also need time to study the opposite parties arguments and prepare our brief and counterpoints for the hearings but it was portrayed as we were trying to delay the case,” he said. He said the progress of the case and future course of strategy to be adopted in the title suit would also be discussed in the meeting with the AIMPLB office-bearers.   

On the TT law, AIMPLB member Qasim Rasool Ilyas, who was asked to study the Bill and prepare a report on the inconsistencies in it said, the Bill was self-contradictory and arbitrary.  

 “Those tom-toming it as a victory of gender justice for Muslim women have not read the law,” he said. “The Bill provides jail-term for instant triple divorce, which if pronounced by a Muslim, is null or void. In other words, you are penalising a person for an act which under the new law has no legal sanctity,” he pointed out. What makes it even worse for the presumed offender, according to him, was that after spending the jail-term he was supposed to go back to his wife as the marriage has not been annulled. Does that sound plausible?

The Bill, according to him, was silent on providing financial security to Muslim women and her children when the spouse is in jail. Who will pay for the maintenance of his wife and family, he asked. “Another major drawback was that marriage is a civil contract under Muslim personal law. You cannot invoke criminal provisions in a civil matter,” he said.