Rohatgi told the bench that if they struck down triple talaq, as well as Nikah Halala and polygamy, the government would draft and institute a new law.
"Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?"
A five-judge seat of the summit court additionally watched that it would not hear polygamy issue alongside the triple talaq case. "It is better that the bench deals with all three", the AG said.
The significant observation was made when Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said the issues of polygamy and "nikah halala" were also part of the order of a two-judge bench, which had referred to the Constitution bench the three issues including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.
Sibal was addressing the constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq.
Rohatgi cited several Muslim countries where the instant talaq was not prevalent.
The board has asserted that a practice which is being followed for 1,400 year cannot be termed as un-Islamic. "What we are seeing in the form of triple talaq is similar to the pre-Islamic era practice where female infants were buried alive", he had said.
He also added that triple talaq is in existence since 637.More news: Conservative drops out of Iran election to back hard-liner
The A-G also asked the bench to clarify that both polygamy and "nikah halala" are still open and would be dealt with by another bench in future, following which the court clarified that "it will be dealt in future".
The Supreme Court will continue its hearing on the most timro triple talaq case today.
The day-long hearing on the matter last Friday also saw two veterans, jurist Ram Jethmalani and former Union Minister and Islamic scholar Arif Mohammad Khan, coming out all guns blazing against the practice of triple talaq. We can't go into rights and wrongs of a religious belief.
He said if the practice of talaq was out of Article 25, then it has to be constitutionally moral, which means it has to be secular and non-discriminatory. Triple talaq is contrary to equality, gender equality and human rights. "You are not an ecclesiastical court to check whether a practice is essential to Islam or not", Mr. Rohatgi said.
However, revisiting the 1951 judgement is one of the central tenets of the petitioners' written submissions, particularly, the Bebaak Collective submission, which argues that personal laws, being statutes and thereby laws in force, must come under Article 13 and be subject to constitutional scrutiny when they violate fundamental rights of citizens.
He said the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, was brought with an intention to ensure that unlike Hindu women, their Muslim counterparts get property rights and it did not codify the Shariat law.
"Triple talaq is unlawful".
If tfaith of Hindus about Ram's birth can not be questioned then triple talaq is a matter of faith for Muslims. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi disagrees and past year waded into a controversy by saying he believed it was destroying women's lives, with Muslims making up about 13 percent of the country's 1.2 billion people.