NEW DELHI: The journey of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill has been one roller coaster ride as the debate on gender here was intertwined with contentious religious and political issues.

It was a struggle that played out in the public domain with the issue of instant triple talaq making headlines since the petition was first filed in Supreme Court in 2016. It started with those who suffered the rough end of this practice where their husbands had pronounced instant talaq (talaq-e-biddat) and left them to fend for themselves.

As women organisations stepped in and the Supreme Court sought the views of all stakeholders involved, the issue fast gained political momentum even as Muslim minority organisations including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) consistently spoke against political interference citing this to be a matter of personal law and citing talaq-e-biddat as a practice that was defined as bad in Islam.

However, they stopped short of taking a stand on declaring it illegal and that is where the triple talaq debate saw minority organisations in a war of words with women organisations like Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, Bebaak Collective, and many other women organisations that stood up for the rights of the Muslim women.

The Supreme Court during the course of the hearing asked various women’ rights bodies, and AIMPLB to give written submissions on the issue of talaq-e- bidat, nikah-halala and polygamy . Women rights organisations like BMMA supported first petitioner Shayara Bano's plea that these practices are unconstitutional. The AIMPLB on the other hand argued that uncodified Muslim personal law is not subject to constitutional judicial review and that these are essential practices of the Islamic religion and protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court judgement came in 2017, it was the turning point as the issue fast grew into a political hot potato with the BJP- led NDA government seizing the opportunity to bring in a a law to make the SC judgement implementable.

It was seen as a political move to counter the Congress and others opposed to the idea of a law as they suspected the real motive of the ruling dispensation was to rein in the Muslim minority and polarise votebanks. This is when minority organisations stepped up their attack on the government for capitalising on the issue. But at the same time women organisations were also divided over the provisions that were introduced in the bill first approved by the Cabinet and later amended to address concerns raised by various stakeholders. However, the government chose to hold onto the clause that criminalised the offence making it punishable with with three years imprisonment.

Many survivors including Shayara Bano and Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan supported the provisions of the bill involving criminalisation with checks like the complaint can be made only by aggrieved woman and her blood relations and bail may be given after the wife is heard by the magistrate.

However, the bill’s criminalisation provisions evoked protests from organisations like Bebaak Collective also a petitioner in the SC case. The AIMPLB’s women’s wing too swung into action setting off a signature campaign against the bill’s provisions and holding press conferences citing the bill to be anti-women and anti-Muslim.

The bill also went through the pull and push of the legislative process as it was passed in Lok Sabha but could not be introduced in Rajya Sabha . Meanwhile, an ordinance was first brought in in September last year and re-promulgated earlier this year. The bill lapsed once the Lok Sabha elections were declared.

The bill was re-introduced by the BJP-led NDA in its second term and now that it has the assent of Parliament, the real test will be in its implementation.

