vvvslaxman Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/the-indian-supreme-court-just-told-muslims-they-cant-have-multiple-wives-230142.html
Texan Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I am confused. So, is the Supreme Court saying that Muslim personal law does not apply in the case of a Muslim man marrying more than once without legally separating from the first wife?? Surely, this is not the first such case in India.
gs Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 first steps towards uniform civil code Truly a challenge to the secular fabric of the nation :giggle:
Yoda-esque Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I see some people arguing against that decision in the comments section. I am confused. Are they being secular or just male chauvinists ?
FischerTal Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Hindutva conspiracy to malign and degrade a fundamental pillar of Muslim identity
gattaca Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 It might be their personal choice but it will take a lot of money to support all the wives and kids. They have to really think before having too many kids or marrying too many wives.
Yoda-esque Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Sakshi Maharaj's logic : 1 x 4 x 1 = 1 x 1 x 4 L.H.S = worst case scenario R.H.S = best case scenario
bulbul Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 SC influenced by RSS which in turn influenced Modi to influence SC.
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I am confused. So' date=' i[b']s the Supreme Court saying that Muslim personal law does not apply in the case of a Muslim man marrying more than once without legally separating from the first wife?? Surely, this is not the first such case in India. There is nothing as such. Lets first understand some background regarding the case. + The case is between Khursheed Aman Khan and State of UP where the former is the plaintiff (appellant). + The appellant was employed by the State of UP as an "Irrigation Supervisor" in the Irrigation Department at IVth Sub Division, Hasanpur. + The appellant was sacked from service for misconduct under Rule 29(1) of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The rules states that if you need to marry twice, you need to take permission from the govt + The High Court upheld the UP government decision when challenged by the appellant + The appellant filed a case against the HC decision plus also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 29(1) citing Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of Indian Constitution + The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 29(1) of the UP Govt Servant Conduct rules. It said that "A law in favor of monogamy does NOT mean it violates Article 25" cited by many judgments in the past (Point 46- 60). The appellant's petition was dismissed. Full Text of the SC judgment So what is the conclusion? Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy. However, jus because they can does not mean the requirement of prior permission from the State violates Article 25. This is so, because in current societal context (not just in India but the entire world) polygamy is not acceptable and "injurious" to morals. Remember my conversation when I said you do not read legal statements from MSM? That time, you hinted at a kaanspiracy because of my political allegiance. Here, there's no such thing. Hopefully, now you see my point. Btw, look at report of the same judgment by another news paper which is more accurate than the OP but still does not give the complete picture. Right to religion not above public morality: SC http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-to-religion-not-above-public-morality-sc/article6876039.ece
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 To add, umpteen times the court as mentioned that IF a religious practice runs against public order, morality or health or policy - religious practice will be shunned in favor of the latter. One of the first cases of such a kind was in 1951 - The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali http://indiankanoon.org/doc/54613/ This OP article is just another headline grabbing tactic to make a certain section salivate for "prospects". Nothing has changed.
bulbul Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 To add' date=' umpteen times the court as mentioned that IF a religious practice runs against public order, morality or health or policy - religious practice will be shunned in favor of the latter. One of the first cases of such a kind was in 1951 - [i']The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali http://indiankanoon.org/doc/54613/ This OP article is just another headline grabbing tactic to make a certain section salivate for "prospects". Nothing has changed. Who?
vvvslaxman Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Yes that was clickbait title. Not sure it will lead to creation of uniform civil code.
diga Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Yes that was clickbait title. Not sure it will lead to creation of uniform civil code. but there are so many clauses/subclauses/tenets in our laws that its impossible to wade through it and on top of it you have personal laws. What if the husband and wife follow different relegions? so its better to simplify it and have a uniform interpretation for everyone
Sachin=GOD Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 first steps towards uniform civil code Yes that was clickbait title. Not sure it will lead to creation of uniform civil code. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Modi Sarkar to pass it in this term.
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Yes that was clickbait title. Not sure it will lead to creation of uniform civil code. In fact, ironically - this is the reason why a UCC WOULD NOT be done.
Crookbond Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 It is IMPOSSIBLE for Modi Sarkar to pass it in this term. Why?
bulbul Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Why? Certain sections will start protest all over country.
rkt.india Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 SC now the moral police. Then why lecture in favor of AIB. Is it not against societal moral?
rkt.india Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 To add' date=' umpteen times the court as mentioned that IF a religious practice runs against public order, morality or health or policy - religious practice will be shunned in favor of the latter. One of the first cases of such a kind was in 1951 - [i']The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali http://indiankanoon.org/doc/54613/ This OP article is just another headline grabbing tactic to make a certain section salivate for "prospects". Nothing has changed. So, if a Muslim who isnt state servant can have multiple wives?
Recommended Posts