Shah Bano To Shayara Bano: BJP's History Attack On Congress In Waqf Debate

New Delhi: The discussion over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in Parliament took a heated turn as the BJP invoked two significant legal cases—Shah Bano and Shayara Bano—to push back against opposition criticism. BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad accused the Congress of compromising on Muslim women’s rights for political reasons, citing its handling of personal law reforms.

Shah Bano Case and Political Fallout

Shah Bano Begum, a resident of Indore, was divorced by her husband, Mohd Ahmad Khan, in 1978. Seeking maintenance, she approached the courts, challenging the prevailing practice under Muslim personal law, which limited a husband's financial obligation to the ‘iddat’ period—approximately three months after divorce. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, stating that she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to all citizens regardless of religion. The ruling triggered opposition from sections of the Muslim community, leading to concerns within the Congress government. In response, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s administration passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, reversing the Supreme Court verdict. The new law restricted a husband's financial responsibility to the iddat period and placed further obligations on the woman’s family or Waqf boards. The move was widely criticized as a concession to conservative factions, a charge Congress has faced repeatedly over the years.

Shayara Bano and the Triple Talaq Ruling

In 2015, Shayara Bano, a woman from Uttar Pradesh, was divorced through the practice of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), which allows a Muslim man to instantly end a marriage by saying “talaq” three times. She challenged the practice in court, arguing that it violated fundamental rights. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled against triple talaq in a 3-2 majority verdict, declaring it unconstitutional and arbitrary. The judgment asserted that the practice was not an essential part of Islam and violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the government to frame legislation on the matter. In response, the Modi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act in 2019, effectively criminalizing the practice.

BJP’s Criticism of Congress Over ‘Vote Bank Politics’

During the parliamentary debate, BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad cited both cases to accuse Congress of prioritizing political considerations over justice for Muslim women. He pointed out that despite holding an overwhelming majority, the Rajiv Gandhi government chose to overturn the Shah Bano verdict under pressure from conservative groups.

“The Supreme Court awarded Shah Bano just a few hundred rupees in maintenance, yet the Congress government bowed to pressure and nullified the judgment,” Prasad stated. He also argued that since that decision, the Congress has failed to secure a majority in general elections. Prasad further accused the UPA government of delaying its response to the triple talaq case to avoid taking a stand. “When our government came to power in 2014, the Prime Minister made it clear that we opposed triple talaq, and we conveyed that to the court,” he said.

The Waqf Bill Row

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to update the 1995 law governing Waqf properties, has intensified political tensions. The government argues that the bill is meant to improve Waqf property management, but opposition parties, including Congress, have criticized the process. They contend that the Joint Parliamentary Committee did not properly consider opposition viewpoints and allege that the bill is being pushed through without adequate consultation.

Critics claim the bill could negatively affect minority communities, while the BJP maintains that the opposition is using the issue for political gains instead of engaging in meaningful debate. As the bill moves through Parliament, sharp exchanges between the ruling party and the opposition are expected to continue. The references to past legal battles over Muslim personal laws have added another dimension to the debate, highlighting deeper ideological divisions over minority rights and legal reforms.