A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul also permitted Khurshid, a senior Congress leader, to file written submissions in the case within two days.
"Of course, we will take it on record," the bench said when Khurshid said that the time for filing written submission in the matter has already expired and he intended to do it in a couple of days.
A five-judge constitution bench would commence hearing from May 11 to decide on the batch of petitions challenging the practices of 'triple talaq', 'nikah halala' and polygamy among Muslims.
The Centre had on April 11 filed fresh submissions in the apex court, saying these practices impacted the social status and dignity of the Muslim women and denied them the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The government had reiterated its earlier stand and said these practices rendered the Muslim women "unequal and vulnerable", not only compared to the men of their community, but the women of other communities as well.
The Centre had said these practices emerged from "patriarchal values and traditional notions about the role of women in society", asserting that "the right of a woman to human dignity, social esteem and self-worth are vital facets of her Right to Life under Article 21".
'Nikah halala' is a practice intended to curb the incidence of divorce under which a man cannot remarry his former wife without her having to go through the process of marrying someone else, consummating it, getting divorced again, observing the separation period called 'Iddat' and then coming back to him.
Influential Muslim organisations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have opposed the court's adjudication of these matters, maintaining that these practices stemmed from the Holy Quran and were not justiciable.
Several Muslim women have challenged the practice of 'triple talaq' in which the husband, quite often, pronounces talaq thrice in one go, sometimes over phone or even a text message.
The Centre had on October 7 last year opposed in the apex court these practices and favoured a relook on grounds like gender equality and secularism.
The AIMPLB had told the court that pleas challenging such practices among Muslims were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of judiciary.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
