Criminal law deals with behavior that is or can be construed as an offense against the public, society, or the state—even if the immediate victim is an individual. Examples are murder, assault, theft,and drunken driving. Civil law deals with behavior that constitutes an injury to an individual or other private party, such as a corporation. Examples are defamation (including libel and slander), breach of contract, negligence resulting in injury or death, and property damage.

Faizan Mustafa, in his article states, “Polygamy was permissible for centuries under Hindu law but then the newly independent Indian state, adopting western culture, in spite of the Hindu right’s opposition, decided to make it a crime. A similar decision was made about dowry. Even immoral conduct can thus be legal if the state so decides. Adultery in most western countries is not a crime. Homosexuality too is now being decriminalised. Adultery by women or an adulterous relationship with unmarried or divorced or widowed women is not punishable even in India. Only men are punished for adultery. Now the apex court is going to examine constitutionality of adultery law.

Moreover, the belief and expectation that the mere fact that if some wrongful conduct becomes a crime, people will resist from indulging in it too is erroneous and has not been proved by any authentic empirical research. As a matter of fact there is no relationship between the incidence of crimes and punishment. Even death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Murder, rape, robbery etc. since antiquity are major crimes with heavy punishments but their rate has only been going up.”

Given all of the above I wonder what the government really intends by proposing to make triple Talaq a criminal offence. Especially since now the Supreme Court has ruled that even if triple Talaq is pronounced, it will amount to only one revocable Talaq, in accordance incidentally, with Islamic law.

So in effect, the situation today is as follows:

  1. Triple Talaq doesn’t dissolve a marriage, as ruled by the Supreme Court and agreed by everyone including the AIMPLB
  2. So even if it’s pronounced, it harms nobody and the marriage is intact.
  3. ‎In effect it is a “crime”that cannot be committed…because even if it is pronounced it’s not valid.
  4. ‎Yet the man is liable to be jailed for three years.

Ask why?

And if you learn why or figure it out, tell me.

I won’t even talk about the effect of jailing the man, often the sole bread earner of the family. I won’t talk about the effect of that stigma on his future ability to get a job and earn an honest living after he is released from prison. I won’t talk about the possible danger of really turning him into a criminal, which is what jails do best anyway. I won’t talk about the effect on his children. I won’t talk about what will happen to that marriage after he returns from jail.

I won’t talk at all.

Mirza Yawar Baig is based in Hyderabad, India and is the founder and President of Yawar Baig & Associates; an international leadership consulting organization. He can be reached at yawar@yawarbaig.com


Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Become a Patron at Patreon Subscribe to our Telegram channel



  1. Sally Dugman says:

    Yes, some laws and customs are certainly strange. ,,, For example, I find it odd that in the USA, you can join the military and shoot at people or bomb them, and you are often called a hero. Yet if you murder someone in the streets of America, you can get life in prison or the death sentence depending on the nature of the crime and the state in which it was conducted.

    I find it equally odd that in the USA we have very strong anti-discrimination laws for work places, but in India, an employer can supposedly fire you if he doesn’t like your political views, sexual orientation or whatever else annoys him.

    How’s that all for supporting conformity? How’s that for Big Brother?

  2. Ibnsuleman says:

    It’s not true that Muslim Personal Law Board has agreed that triple talaq is one talaq and doesn’t dissolve the marriage irrevocablely. In fact it firmly believe that it doesn’t end marriage tie irrevocablely. This is belief of majority muslims of the world. Punishing is one thing but forcing the couple to live like husband and wife is a major sin. Beliefs are outside the ambit of Supreme Courts which held that this belief is not integral to islamic faith. Now will it take such a stand on Hinduism? There is nothing integral to Hinduism. Everyone knows that. So will it keep bulldoseing everything of it if it goes against the constitution?

  3. Ibnsuleman says:

    Correction in my just posted comments
    In fact it firmly believes that it does end marriage tie irrevocablely

  4. Ibnsuleman says:

    Triple talaq given at a time or at intervals breaks the marriage irrevocablely. There should be deterrents to give triple talaqs but surely this act simply is not criminal. Solid deterrents like compensating entire marriage expenditure etc can be employed. However, woman can also be seriously guilty of wrongs knowing which husband can’t be expected to continue wedlock like having physical relationship with other men. Such crimes on the part of one should justify the act and should not have punishment either.

  5. K SHESHU BABU says:

    Laws should be framed in such a way that they do not connote particular religion or caste. While hue and cry is being raised about triple talaq, even hindu women are facing exploitation. Women should be liberated from clutches of male hegemony irrespective of Islam, hindu, sikh or christianity. The SC must consider condition of women as a whole in all religions

Translate »