Author: Swarali Ghorpade, ILS Law College
To the Point
The case challenged the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Biddat (instant triple talaq), a practice under Muslim personal law that allowed Muslim men to divorce their wives instantly by pronouncing “talaq” three times in one sitting. Whether instant triple talaq violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life and liberty), and if it is protected as an essential religious practice under Article 25In a closely split 3:2 decision, the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional. The majority opinion found it to be arbitrary in nature, thereby violating the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the practice does not constitute an essential religious practice and therefore does not receive protection under Article 25, which safeguards religious freedom. Instant triple talaq was invalidated. This led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized the practice, as it was not regarded as an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Shayara Bano judgment did not merely resolve a legal question; it catalyzed a nationwide discourse on the intersection of religion, gender, and law. For the first time, the everyday realities faced by Muslim women—often ignored in debates over personal law—received nationwide attention. Civil society organizations, women’s rights groups, and legal scholars actively engaged in the public conversation, viewing the case as a turning point in dismantling patriarchal religious structures. The judgment thus transcended the courtroom and became part of a broader feminist and secular rights movement in India.
Abstract
The practice of Talaq-e-Biddat has long been criticized by women’s rights groups and civil society for being heavily skewed against Muslim women .While the practice lacked acceptance across all Islamic schools of thought, it remained prevalent among particular Sunni communities in India. The issue drew nationwide focus as more Muslim women reported being unilaterally divorced via text messages, phone calls, or social media, igniting widespread debates on religious practices.
Shayara Bano’s case emerged as a rallying point for Muslim women seeking legal reforms within personal law frameworks. It highlighted the tension between faith-based traditions and constitutional rights, particularly when such practices place an unequal burden on marginalized communities, such as Muslim women. This case highlighted the judiciary’s evolving approach in scrutinizing personal laws through the lens of constitutional morality. The judges differed not just in their conclusions but also in their reasoning: some declared the practice unconstitutional due to its arbitrary nature under Article 14, while others ruled it invalid from a theological perspective, arguing it was not an essential component of Islam. The dissenting judges argued that reforming religious practices is a responsibility best left to the legislature, not the judiciary.This divergence in perspectives highlights the broader difficulty the judiciary encounters when navigating religion-based personal laws in a secular democratic system.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Shayara Bano judgment serves as a seminal moment in India’s constitutional transformation, not merely for its ruling on Talaq-e-Biddat, but for its broader implications in advancing substantive equality and challenging long-standing legal pluralism. The case reflects a growing legal shift toward prioritizing constitutional authority over traditional and religious practices, particularly those that reinforce systemic inequality.
While personal laws were traditionally viewed as outside the purview of Part III of the Constitution, this case disrupted that orthodoxy. It underscored the idea that personal laws must be consistent with constitutional values, particularly in a secular and democratic nation This case stands as a landmark in the progression of feminist constitutionalism in India, emphasizing that gender justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of religious orthodoxy. Shayara Bano’s challenge was not just legal—it was symbolic of a larger movement asserting bodily autonomy, agency, and dignity of Muslim women within a legal system that had often rendered them invisible.
The Proof
The constitutional validity of the Shayara Bano judgment is grounded in the Court’s duty to uphold constitutional supremacy over uncodified religious practices, particularly when those practices infringe upon fundamental rights. The ruling acts not just as a legal determination but also as a constitutional effort to challenge deep-rooted gender inequalities sustained by personal law. Although not codified under statutory law, Talaq-e-Biddat operated as a unilateral and irrevocable act executed solely by the husband. Allowing one party to dissolve a legal relationship unilaterally—without advance notice, an opportunity for the other to be heard, or access to redress—stands in clear violation of natural justice principles. Historically, the judiciary has intervened in the face of legislative inaction, particularly on issues related to civil liberties and individual rights. Before the 2019 law was introduced, Muslim women affected by instant triple talaq had no legal safeguard under statutory provision The judgment aligns with the evolving doctrine of transformative constitutionalism, wherein the Constitution is interpreted as a living document aimed at realizing social justice and equality. Although the case emerged from Muslim personal law, the Court’s rationale upheld the broader gender-neutral ideals embedded in the Indian Constitution.
Case Laws
State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali
Citation: AIR 1952 Bom 84
In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that personal laws do not fall within the definition of ‘laws’ under Article 13, and hence, are not open to constitutional review. Although not overruled in Shayara Bano, this precedent was indirectly questioned, as the Court subjected uncodified personal law to a test of arbitrariness under Article 14.
It Sparks ongoing debate on whether uncodified personal laws can be tested against fundamental rights.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945
The Court confirmed that even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, guaranteeing her basic financial assistance.
It Emphasized that secular laws override personal laws in matters of basic human rights, particularly for women.
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 740
It Upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, by interpreting it in a way that it did not curtail a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance beyond the iddat period.
It Reinforced the principle that personal law-based legislation must conform to constitutional guarantees.
Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India
Citation: (1997) 3 SCC 573
The Petitioners challenged several practices under Muslim personal law (polygamy, unilateral divorce, etc.), but the Supreme Court refused to entertain the PIL, stating it was a matter for the legislature.
It Stands in contrast to Shayara Bano, where the Court did intervene judicially.
Conclusion
The 2017 Shayara Bano v. Union of India ruling marks a pivotal point in the evolution of Indian constitutional law and the pursuit of gender equality. By declaring the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional, the Supreme Court not only safeguarded the fundamental rights of Muslim women but also reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional values over arbitrary and discriminatory personal laws. The decision marked a shift toward greater accountability of uncodified religious practices to the principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. It showcased the judiciary’s commitment to transformative constitutionalism, wherein the law becomes a vehicle for social reform and emancipation of the marginalized. Importantly, the judgment also set a precedent for evaluating personal laws through the lens of constitutional morality, paving the way for future legal challenges to gender-biased customs. Shayara Bano ultimately signifies a legal and ethical stance that, in a secular democracy, personal freedoms and justice must take precedence over age-old customs.
FAQs
What legal or legislative action followed the judgment?
In response to the judgment, the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, making instant triple talaq a criminal offense and offering legal safeguards to the Muslim women impacted by the practice.
How did the case impact Muslim personal law in India?
The case marked a turning point by establishing that uncodified personal laws are not immune from constitutional scrutiny. It set a precedent for examining other potentially discriminatory practices under personal laws through the lens of fundamental rights.
Why is the Shayara Bano case considered significant for women’s rights?
The case is considered a milestone in the struggle for gender justice and equality, particularly for Muslim women. It recognized the need to protect women from arbitrary practices and upheld their right to dignity, equality, and personal liberty, reinforcing that religion cannot be used to justify gender-based oppression.
What does the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 aim to address?
The Act declares the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) to be illegal and unenforceable. It prohibits Muslim husbands from dissolving a marriage unilaterally through this form of divorce and treats any such pronouncement as void in law. It categorizes the act as a cognizable and non-bailable offense, carrying a penalty of up to three years in prison. It also includes measures to provide financial support to the woman and addresses the custody rights of her children.
What impact did instant triple talaq have on the legal and social status of Muslim women?
Instant triple talaq often left women without financial security, shelter, or legal recourse, sometimes delivered through text messages or informal means. This unilateral form of divorce denied women dignity, justice, and equality, contributing to long-standing gender-based discrimination.
Does the criminalization of instant triple talaq interfere with religious freedom in India?
While some argued it infringes on religious liberty, the Supreme Court and Parliament justified the move by emphasizing that the practice was not essential to Islam and violated constitutional rights like equality and non-discrimination. Thus, upholding constitutional morality took precedence over personal law in this context.
