BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:PUBLISH
PRODID:-//Telerik Inc.//Sitefinity CMS 15.1//EN
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Eastern Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20251102T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=11
TZNAME:Eastern Standard Time
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20250301T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=3
TZNAME:Eastern Daylight Time
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DESCRIPTION:The South Asia Center at the Moynihan Institute presents a talk
by Yüksel Sezgin\, Syracuse University. \;Lower court judges in Commo
n Law jurisdictions rely on legal precedent for everyday adjudication. The
y look to higher courts\, particularly in religious cases\, for authoritat
ive\, non-controversial precedents with clear narratives. Narratival clari
ty\, however\, should not be taken for granted amidst growing social divis
ions\, ideological polarization\, and politicization of judiciaries. \
;How do lower court judges cope with the challenge of following precedents
with obscure narratives? The paper will address this question by examinin
g data collected from interviews with Indian judges and attorneys and over
2\,000 court decisions dealing with Islamic divorces—especially triple ta
laq (TT). \;Focusing on post-Shayara Bano (2017) case law\, the paper
will demonstrate that narratival obscurity creates challenges for lower co
urt judges to decipher the legal meaning of apex court judgments and follo
w them as precedents. Instead\, many judges resort to an “open buffet” str
ategy by liberally reinterpreting higher court rulings and constructing th
eir own “precedents” with narratives that closely reflect their political
and communal preferences. This\, in turn\, undermines the rule of law by f
urther politicizing the judiciary and eroding public trust in the courts.
Moreover\, narratival ambiguity often derails internal reform within relig
ious communities by denying cultural dissenters valuable feedback while em
powering conservative forces.Yüksel Sezgin is an associate professor of po
litical science at Syracuse University. He is the author of “Human Rights
under State-Enforced Religious Family Laws in Israel\, Egypt and India” (C
ambridge University Press\, 2013). He is currently finishing a new book lo
oking at how non-Muslim courts apply Muslim family laws\, specifically foc
using on the cases of Israel\, India\, Greece and Ghana. \;
DTEND:20240416T210000Z
DTSTAMP:20260513T102325Z
DTSTART:20240416T193000Z
LOCATION:
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:Narratival Ambiguity and Its Consequences: The Case of Muslim Divor
ce in Indian Courts
UID:RFCALITEM639142502053092594
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:The South Asia Center at the Moynihan Insti
tute presents a talk by Yüksel Sezgin\, Syracuse University. \;
Lower court judges in Common Law jurisdictions rely on legal preceden
t for everyday adjudication. They look to higher courts\, particularly in
religious cases\, for authoritative\, non-controversial precedents with cl
ear narratives. Narratival clarity\, however\, should not be taken for gra
nted amidst growing social divisions\, ideological polarization\, and poli
ticization of judiciaries. \;
How do lower court
judges cope with the challenge of following precedents with obscure narra
tives? The paper will address this question by examining data collected fr
om interviews with Indian judges and attorneys and over 2\,000 court decis
ions dealing with Islamic divorces—especially triple talaq (TT). \;
Focusing on post-Shayara Bano (2017) case law\, the pap
er will demonstrate that narratival obscurity creates challenges for lower
court judges to decipher the legal meaning of apex court judgments and fo
llow them as precedents. Instead\, many judges resort to an “open buffet”
strategy by liberally reinterpreting higher court rulings and constructing
their own “precedents” with narratives that closely reflect their politic
al and communal preferences. This\, in turn\, undermines the rule of law b
y further politicizing the judiciary and eroding public trust in the court
s. Moreover\, narratival ambiguity often derails internal reform within re
ligious communities by denying cultural dissenters valuable feedback while
empowering conservative forces.
Yüksel Sezgin is a
n associate professor of political science at Syracuse University. He is t
he author of “Human Rights under State-Enforced Religious Family La
ws in Israel\, Egypt and India” (Cambridge University Press\, 2013).
He is currently finishing a new book looking at how non-Muslim courts appl
y Muslim family laws\, specifically focusing on the cases of Israel\, Indi
a\, Greece and Ghana. \;