SHAYARA BANO V. UOI (TRIPLE TALAQ CASE)

Writ Petition No. 118 of 2016

Case Decided on –  22nd August 2017

Petitioner – Shayara Bano

Respondent – Rizwan Ahmed, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Union of India

Provisions related –  Article 14, Article 15, Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the case

Shayara Bano (wife) the petitioner, and Rizwan Ahmad (husband)  the respondent, formally consummated their nikkah (marriage) on April 11, 2001, in accordance with Shariah law (Mohammedan law)They are parents to a daughter and a son.

Using talaq-e-biddat, triple talaq, or instant talaq, Rizwan Ahmad divorced his wife on October 10, 2015 (saying, “I gave talaq, talaq, talaq,” in front of two witnesses).

Talaq-e-Biddat, commonly referred to as instant triple talaq, is a form of divorce in Islamic law that allows a Muslim man to unilaterally and irrevocably divorce his wife by pronouncing the word “talaq” (divorce) three times in one sitting, either verbally, in writing, or even through electronic communication however this type of talaq is not authentic and human-made.

In February 2016, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) in a writ case filed with the Supreme Court (SC).The petitioner claimed that the procedures were not covered by Articles 25(1), 26(b), and 29 of the Constitution and that this kind of divorce (talaq) violated fundamental rights. In a writ case submitted to the Supreme Court, Shayara Bano contested the constitutionality of three Muslim personal law practices, specifically.

Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-bidder)

Polygamy

Nikah Halala

Shayara Bano, the petitioner, claimed that these actions violated her fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution. Shayara Bano’s appeal was backed by the Union of India and women’s rights groups, including the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and the Bebaak Collective. They claimed that the actions violated the Constitution and pleaded with the Supreme Court to acknowledge that the Constitution’s fundamental rights should apply to personal law. The petition was contested by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). They maintained that the Court lacked the authority to evaluate uncodified Muslim personal law under the constitution. According to AIMPLB, these customs are essential to Islam and are safeguarded by Article 25 of the Constitution, which upholds religious freedom.

Issues in the case

1. Are the fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution violated by triple talaq?
2. Does the Constitution’s Articles 25(1), 26(b), and 29 protect the practice of triple talaq?
3. Is Triple Talaq a necessary religious observance?
4. Does the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 make the practice of triple talaq unlawful?

Arguments in the case

In Favor of Petitioner Shayara Bano

Mr Amit Chadha argued in favour of the petitioner, claiming that the Quran does not recognize talaq-ebiddat. Divorce is only permitted when there is a valid reason and an effort at reconciliation. He argued that the practice discriminated against women by giving men the unilateral authority to divorce, in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. He suggested the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, as a remedy, offering a more equal divorce procedure for men and women. Mr Salman Khurshid emphasized that before each talaq declaration, the Quran requires an iddat, or waiting period, during which attempts at reconciliation are made.

In Favor of the Respondents (AIMPLB)

Representing AIMPLB, Mr Kapil Sibal contended that Muslim marriage is a private contract exempt from constitutional judicial review. He argued that personal laws, particularly uncodified Muslim personal law, are not covered by Article 13. Additionally, according to Mr Sibal, Muslim women are not discriminated against by triple talaq since they have recourse under secular laws such as the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which allows them to negotiate a greater mehar (dower) or even assert their right to talaq.

In Favor of the Union of India (Supporting Petitioner)

The Union of India was represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi. He maintained that polygamy, nikah halala, and talaq-e-biddat are unconstitutional. They infringe upon Muslim women’s fundamental rights. Additionally, he cited the Narasu Appa Mali case, which proposed that uncodified personal laws be reexamined and put through a judicial review process to determine whether they adhere to fundamental rights.

Justifications for Shayara Bano’s Husband (Respondent)

On behalf of Shayara Bano’s husband, Mr. Manoj Goel contended that divorce is a private matter between two people and is not a state matter. Justice Nariman, however, retorted that the Shariat Act of 1937 places personal law under the jurisdiction of the state and open to judicial review under specific circumstances.

Rule of Law

1. Talaq-e-Biddat is Unconstitutional: Because it is capricious and discriminatory, it breaches Articles14 (equality) and 21 (right to dignity).
2. Personal Laws Are Subject to Constitutional Scrutiny: Religious practices cannot supersede fundamental rights and must adhere to the Constitution.
3. Not an Essential Religious Practice: Talaq-e-Biddat is not protected by Article 25 (freedom of religion)and is not a fundamental aspect of Islam.
4. Arbitrariness Prohibited: The Constitution forbids arbitrary actions, especially in the context of personal law.
5. Gender Justice Prioritized: The ruling protected women’s equality and dignity and protected them from an abrupt and unilateral divorce.

Judgement

On August 22nd 2017, the five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the Triple Talaq Case, declaring that the practice was unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority.

Majority: Rohinton Nariman J. and U.U. Lalit J.

Concurring: Kurian Joseph J.

Dissenting: CJI J.S. Khehar and Abdul Nazeer J.

By using the word “talaq” three times in quick succession, a Muslim man can instantly and permanently divorce his wife under the practice known as Triple Talaq, or Talaq-e-Biddat. Ms. Shayara Bano challenged the practice in a Supreme Court petition. She maintained that, among other constitutional rights, it infringes against Muslim women’s equality. Many of the people that were involved in this case agreed with this argument. The case was considered by the Supreme Court’s five judge Constitution Bench on May 11, 2017. It reserved the case for judgment following six days of arguments from both sides.

The Parliament was instructed by the Court to enact legislation to combat the Triple Talaq practice.

According to Justices Rohinton Nariman and U.U. Lalit, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 governs Talaq-e-Biddat. They ruled that because the practice is arbitrary, it is unconstitutional. In contrast, Justice Kurian Joseph stated in his concurring opinion that Triple Talaq is prohibited by the Quran and, as such, is not legally acceptable. “What is bad in theology is also bad in law,” he stated, adding that “what is deemed bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat.”

Notably, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer’s minority dissenting judgment recalled the Constituent Assembly’s debates on Articles 25 and 44, which elevated personal law to the status of basic rights. They maintained that Triple Talaq is an inherent component of personal law and is not governed by the Shariat Act of 1937. Therefore, Article 25 protects it. Furthermore, legislative action—rather than contesting the legitimacy of Talaq-e-Biddat—is the answer to the gender discriminatory practice. Triple Talaq should be rendered inactive for six months following the ruling, according to the minority opinion. The Parliament must draft legislation about triple talaq throughout this period. But as Triple Talaq has been expressly prohibited by the majority ruling, this instruction holds no force.

By a vote of 3 to 2, the Supreme Court declared that triple talaq was illegal and that it infringed upon  fundamental rights garanteed by Articles 14 and 15.The Hanafi school was the main adherent of the practice, which the Court emphasized was wicked and unapproved of by the Quran. It concluded that  triple talaq was not a fundamental religious practice covered by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, citing international Islamic reforms. Triple talaq, according to Justices Nariman, Lalit, and Joseph, is capricious and a violation of gender equality. Justices Khehar and Nazeer dissented, ruling that  uncodified personal laws, like as those about talaq, should not be subject to constitutionally mandated judicial review. The government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 in response to the Shayara Bano ruling, making triple talaq a crime punishable by up to three years in prison.

Conclusion

The Shayara Bano ruling, which ruled that triple talaq was unconstitutional, was a significant step toward equality. The triple talaq ruling by the Supreme Court upholds Muslim women’s rights and gender equality while advocating for a more secure and equitable existence consistent with constitutional principles. The ruling also demonstrates a dedication to secularism and offers a solid basis for upcoming personal law reforms. The preservation of marriage and women’s rights were the primary concerns of the ruling.

Under no legislation can a divorce of this kind be considered a “rule of decision.”

This SC ruling was a wise move to preserve religious identity and gender equality.

An important step toward gender justice and equality in India was taken when the Shayara Bano case  resulted in a historic ruling that invalidated the practice of Talaq-e-Biddat (immediate triple talaq). The Supreme Court underlined that personal laws are subject to constitutional examination and must be  in line with fundamental rights including equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21) by ruling that the practice was unconstitutional. The ruling upheld the fundamental idea that arbitrary actions, regardless of their religious origins, cannot supersede the principles of justice and equity enshrined in the constitution. The Court maintained the necessity of striking a balance between religious  freedom and individual rights by holding that Talaq Biddat is not a necessary religious practice under  Article 25.Wide-ranging effects on India’s personal law reforms have resulted from this ruling, which has protected women from discriminatory practices and opened the door for progressive laws like the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. It serves as evidence of the judiciary’s function in preserving the Constitution and advancing gender equality in a multicultural and nonreligious society.

Reference

1. Testbook.com, ‘Shayara Bano vs Union of India Case Summary and Analysis’<https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/shayara-bano-vs-union-of india#:~:text=The%20Shayara%20Bano%20judgment%20marked,in%20line%20with%20constitut ional%20values >December 26, 2024 accessed 26 December 2024.
2. Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1< https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115701246/> accessed 26 December 2024.
3. Drishti Judiciary, ‘Shayara Bano v Union of India and Ors AIR 2017 SC 4609’ <https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/muslim-law/shayara-bano-v-union-ofindia-and-ors-air-2017-sc-4609 >accessed 26 December 2024.
4. SC Observer, ‘Shayara Bano v Union of India: Plain English Summary of the Judgment’<https://www.scobserver.in/reports/shayara-bano-union-india-triple-talaq-plain-englishsummary-of-the-judgment/> accessed 26 December 2024.