The apex court bench on Friday issued notice to the Centre on a set of PILs challenging the recent Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, more popularly known as the triple talaq criminalisation. The bench decided to issue notice and hear the matter immediately as the matter was called for hearing The bench asked the petitioners why an objection was being made on religious grounds The bench pointed out while the Act prescribes a maximum sentence of three years, there is no minimum sentence Living under constant media glare can perhaps unnerve even the judges of the highest court. On Friday, the bench of Justices NV Ramana and Ajay Rastogi, in a lighter vein, showed their acknowledgment of the large number of reporters gathered in the courtroom. The apex court bench on Friday issued notice to the Centre on a set of PILs challenging the recent Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, more popularly known as the triple talaq criminalisation. The bench decided to issue notice and hear the matter immediately as the matter was called for hearing. However, the judges then seemed to take note of the reporters, and commented that "some people may be disappointed if we don't ask questions". The bench then asked senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the petitioners, to argue. Four petitions had been filed before the bench by Maulana Amir Rashadi Madani, the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind among others. The pleas have alleged that the Act is unconstitutional, as it criminalises the "mere pronouncement of triple talaq, which had already been declared unconstitutional and void" by the Supreme Court. The pleas have also alleged that the law "unjustly and unfairly" criminalises the act of one community, even as desertion of the wife by other communities is not a crime. The bench, however, asked the petitioners why an objection was being made on religious grounds when the law was made to prohibit a harmful religious practice. "We have three questions for you. Firstly, if a religious practice is prohibited for social welfare like it was done for dowry, sati pratha. If it is done it's punishable. So why object to criminalisation of triple talaq?" Justice Ramana asked. The bench also pointed out that while the Act prescribes a maximum sentence of three years, there is no minimum sentence. "It can be one day, it can be three years. There is no minimum punishment. What's the objection?" the bench said. "Third issue is that the woman has to be heard before grant of bail. That's the same provision as other laws," the bench noted. The observations were made as the petitioners have alleged that the law prescribed an "excessive and arbitrary punishment" for pronouncing instant triple talaq, and also created "unfair" barriers to grant of bail. Khurshid in his arguments told the court that the main issue was that the Act prescribed strict punishment without actually fulfilling its objective of protecting women. "Do the women actually get their rights?" Khurshid argued. Speaking to India Today, petitioner Maulana Amir Rashadi Madani said that the Act had failed to actually ensure that women were granted maintenance and protection. "The objective of the Act was to protect women, but it only criminalises an act which is already void, and has no provisions for maintenance. What happens to the woman if the husband goes to jail?" Madani said. The plea is now likely to be heard in the last week of September.