Following are the points of

Following are the points of

agreement and disagreement between the majority and minority verdicts of the Supreme Court which today set aside the age- old practice of triple talaq among Muslims:

*Justice Kurian Joseph who wrote one of the two majority verdicts agreed with the minority verdict penned by Chief Justice J S Khehar that The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, is not a law regulating talaq.

*He disagreed with a separate majority verdict by Justice R F Nariman that the 1937 Act is a legislation regulating triple talaq and hence, can be tested on the anvil of Article 14 (right to equality).
 

*Justice Joseph, however, agreed with Justice Nariman that a legislation, be it plenary or subordinate, can be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, saying Indian democracy cannot conceive of a legislation which is arbitrary.

*He further disagreed with CJI Khehar that triple talaq has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question and part of their personal law.

*Justice Joseph agreed with the views of CJI that freedom of religion under the Constitution is absolute.

*Justice Joseph said that merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid, if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible.

*He disagreed with the CJI that there cannot be any constitutional protection to triple talaq.

*Justice Joseph disagreed with the view of the CJI that though triple talaq is fundamental to Islam, its practice can be stayed by the SC by exercising extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.