Those opposing this practice argued that Triple Locker is discriminating against women and against their fundamental rights and dignity.
On the other hand, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which claimed three liquid validity, argued that the court should not interfere on this issue as it is a matter of faith.
"Personal law has been prepared with the Koran, hadith and three talents, 1,400 years old, we are saying that it is Islamic. It is not a question of good conscience or ethics but it is a question of faith, it is not a question of constitutional morality. , "Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who represented the board, told the court in May.
Here are the three arguments and arguments against it
Triple talc is discriminatory and 'bad' law
The trial against Tatkal Talek immediately began with a petition filed by Sharara Bano in 2016, after which the 15-year marriage ended in 2015.
Article 14 provides equality before law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, Article 21 supports the right of life and personal freedom, and in the end, Article 25 person Gives the right to freedom of discretion and the right to preach, practice and propagate a religion
"Muslim women have been locked up on Skype, Facebook and text messages, there is no security against such a controversial divorce. Muslim women are bound by hands while divorces of Guilotines hang, they are considered to be husband's sensibilities Unquestionable power. In the light of the progressive time of the 21st century, when such a discrimination and inequality is expressed abhorrently as the one-sided triaphalak, It adds ".
The petitioners argued that the immediate trilax may not be appropriate in the context of modern law, which, in the context of gender equality or religious sanction,
Another petitioner, West Bengal's Ishrat Jahan, in his petition filed in 2016, had said, "The practice of Talab-e-Batat (one-sided three-taluk) that practically behaves like women, neither does modern human rights It is harmonious with the principles of gender equality, or an integral part of the Islamic belief, according to various scholars. "
"According to many scholars, divorce-a-bit is not a form of recognized divorce in the Holy Quran because the holy book provides reconsideration to reconsider and provide immutability before identifying divorce."
Lawyer Indira Jai Singh, appearing for a Muslim women organization, Bebeak Collective, argued that "personal law" can not be freed from the constitution of India, Devjibblog said.
The important question was raised, "Private laws will have to investigate fundamental laws."
"In spite of the legal system, all the systems must follow the discipline of the constitution at the end of the day," he said.
"What prevents the constitution where the family law begins?" He asked.
Explaining that marriage was a contract with life-transforming influences, it argued that the interests of both the parties involved in the dissolution were to take immediate triple coppieces, however, they argued that it was a completely unilateral process that women There was no place for consent. "The bottom line is the consent because as a person, we are all citizens and are equal", he said.
Apart from this, while pointing out the lack of judicial inspection on the process of three takasak, Jassig argued that it was unconstitutional. "No matter how generously you interpret three troubles, it is one-sided. This is an additional judicial unilateral process and the result is final without any discussion."
Can not interfere with Triple Lock
for indian democracy it is very necessary that there will be equal law and order for all. today the judgmeent given by Hon'ble Apex Court is good for everyone.