Shayara Bano vs Union of India 2017, Background, Issue, Judgment

Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017), also known as the “Triple Talaq Case”, is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional. The case became a turning point in Indian constitutional law, women’s rights, and religious freedom debates. The decision examined whether talaq-e-biddat, an irreversible unilateral divorce pronounced thrice in one sitting, violated Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It laid the foundation for later legislative reforms prohibiting instant divorce among Muslims.

Shayara Bano vs Union of India Background

The Shayara Bano vs Union of India case arose after Shayara Bano challenged her instant divorce and questioned the constitutional validity of triple talaq.

• Shayara Bano married Rizwan Ahmad on 11 April 2001 according to Muslim Shariat law.
• The couple had two children, a son and a daughter, during their marriage.
• On 10 October 2015, her husband gave instant triple talaq by pronouncing “talaq” thrice before witnesses.
• She filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in February 2016 seeking to strike down triple talaq as unconstitutional.
• She argued that talaq-e-biddat violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty.
• She also argued that triple talaq was not protected under Articles 25, 26(b), and 29 relating to religious freedom and cultural rights.
• It asked whether the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act 1937 validated or enforced the practice.
• The Union of India supported ending triple talaq, citing women’s rights and constitutional values.
• Several community bodies presented different views, reflecting religious, social, and legal complexities.

Shayara Bano vs Union of India Issue Involved

The Shayara Bano vs Union of India case required the Supreme Court to decide whether triple talaq violated constitutional protections and whether it was an essential religious practice.

• Whether triple talaq violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 by enabling arbitrary and unilateral divorce.
• Whether talaq-e-biddat fell under protection of religious freedom in Articles 25(1), 26(b), and 29.
• Whether instant talaq could be considered an essential practice of Islam requiring constitutional protection.
• Whether the practice was consistent with the ideals of Shariat and the teachings of the Quran.
• Whether the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 recognized or enforced triple talaq as binding law.
• Whether the judiciary had the authority to review personal law practices when they conflict with fundamental rights.
• Whether instant talaq could be sustained when it required no reconciliation efforts.
• Whether the form of divorce was inherently arbitrary and therefore invalid.
• Whether the 5-judge Constitution Bench could strike down a religious practice deemed harmful to gender equality.
• Whether triple talaq should remain valid unless Parliament enacted a law replacing it.

‹ ›

Shayara Bano vs Union of India Judgment

The Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment delivered a historic ruling declaring instant triple talaq unconstitutional and arbitrary.

• The judgment was delivered on 22 August 2017 by a five-judge bench: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, and Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman, U.U. Lalit, and Abdul Nazeer
• The practice of triple talaq was struck down with a 3:2 majority decision.
• The majority opinion was authored by Justices Nariman, Lalit, and Kurian Joseph.
• The majority held that instant triple talaq is arbitrary because it allows a Muslim man to dissolve marriage unilaterally without reason.
• The court stated that talaq-e-biddat is not protected under Article 25 as it is not an essential Islamic practice
• Justice Kurian Joseph held that what is invalid in the Quran cannot be considered valid under Shariat or law.
• The court held that triple talaq violated Article 14 because it permitted a capricious breakup of marriage without any reconciliation process.
• The Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was interpreted as “law in force” under Article 13, making unconstitutional practices subject to judicial review.
• The court struck down the practice to the extent that it recognized and enforced instant talaq.
• The minority view by Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer argued that while triple talaq was undesirable, only Parliament should legislate on it.