Triple Talaq Bill finally clears Rajya Sabha hurdle after many abstain from voting
New Delhi, July 30: The Rajya Sabha on Tuesday passed the contentious Triple Talaq Bill as the majority mark of the House came down after several parties abstained from voting.
The bill, which criminalises instant triple talaq and stipulates three years jail for violations, was passed with 99 Ayes and 84 Noes. The AIADMK and JD (U) decided to abstain from voting. Their absence from voting helped bring down the effective strength of the 240-member Rajya Sabha and the majority mark.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, also known as the Triple Talaq Bill, was first brought to Parliament nearly 19 months back, but repeatedly failed to clear the Rajya Sabha test.
The Upper House earlier rejected an opposition sponsored motion to send the bill to a Rajya Sabha Select Committee with 100 votes against it as compared to 84 in favour.
Last week, the Triple Talaq Bill, was passed by 303 ayes and 82 noes in Lok Sabha. The bill, which criminalises instant divorce by Muslim men and seeks jail term for the guilty, was the first draft legislation tabled by the Narendra Modi government in this first session after it took oath of office for a second term in May.
Rajya Sabha composition during Triple Talaq voting:
The NDA was also helped by the absence of some members of SP and BSP as well as those of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and YSR-Congress. While BJD supported the legislation, JD-U and AIADMK walked out, lowering the majority mark which normally stands at 121. The ruling NDA has 107 members in the 242-member Rajya Sabha. The bill follows a Supreme Court verdict of 2017 declaring instant triple talaq as unconstitutional.
There is already an ordinance in place which will lapse if the Bill does not get passed by both Houses and gets the President's assent within this session. The proposed legislation, which seeks to criminalise instant triple talaq among Muslims, has been controversial ever since its inception following a SC judgement in 2017.