Author : Narottam Priyadarshi
A student at Integrated law course, faculty of law, Delhi University
Abstract
The landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) changed the legal and social scenario of personal laws in India by declaring the practice of talaq-e-biddat, or instant triple talaq, unconstitutional. This Supreme Court judgment not only strengthened constitutional rights of Muslim women but also set a precedent for the reform of personal laws, bringing them in line with fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. This is an important step towards making sure that gender justice and equality are achieved in the diverse socio-religious fabric of India.
To the Point
What was challenged? The constitutional validity of talaq-e-biddat, a practice whereby a Muslim man could divorce his wife by uttering “talaq” thrice in one sitting, often without any reasonable cause or scope for reconciliation.
The parties involved in the case were Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman who was divorced through talaq-e-biddat, and the respondents were her husband, Rizwan Ahmad, and the Union of India.
Important legal questions
Whether talaq-e-biddat violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 25 (Freedom of Religion)?
Whether personal laws should be subjected to judicial scrutiny?
The Proof
Shayara Bano’s petition argued that talaq-e-biddat is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates fundamental rights. Her case was bolstered by the following evidence:
Lack of Quranic Basis: Scholars and experts testified that talaq-e-biddat is not mandated by the Quran. The Holy Quran emphasizes reconciliation and arbitration before divorce, making instant triple talaq un-Islamic.
International Precedents: Many Islamic countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, had already abolished talaq-e-biddat as inconsistent with Islamic principles and modern jurisprudence.
Impact on Women: The practice left women without financial security, social support, or a voice in the divorce process, violating their dignity and equality.
Case Laws
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases to arrive at its decision:
Narasu Appa Mali Case (1952): Held that personal laws are not “laws in force” under Article 13, and hence not subject to judicial review. This precedent was revisited in Shayara Bano.
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001): Validated the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, but made sure that the divorced woman got a reasonable and fair amount of maintenance.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): Uphold the right of Muslim women for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC irrespective of the personal law.
Decision
The five-judge Constitutional Bench gave a 3:2 majority decision as follows:
Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman, and U.U. Lalit declared talaq-e-biddat violative of Article 14. They opined,
The practice is violative of Article 14, as it is arbitrary in nature and permits unilateral talaq without reasonable grounds or redress.
This contradicts Islamic principles and is not safeguarded by Article 25 of the Constitution.
Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer expressed dissent, recommending amendment of law by the legislature and not by the courts. They proposed a six-month order of injunction on talaq-e-biddat for allowing Parliament to enact the legislation.
Conclusion
The judgment in Shayara Bano has left its indelible mark on the jurisprudence of Indian jurisprudence as a case that balanced religious freedom and gender justice. It allowed for the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, that criminalized instant triple talaq. This case demonstrated that personal laws cannot be placed over and above fundamental rights while ensuring that the judiciary guards the constitutional values.
FAQS
Does this judgment affect all types of talaq in Islam?
No, the judgment was specifically directed against talaq-e-biddat. Talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan, where there is a waiting period and reconciliation, are not affected.
Was this judgment an infringement of religious freedom?
The court clarified that the practices violating the constitutional principles cannot be protected under Article 25, even if they have religious roots.
What is the legislative consequence of this judgment?
It has paved the way for the consideration of the Uniform Civil Code in India.
Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized instant triple talaq and punished those guilty of it.
What did this case do to gender equality?
It represented an important step toward Muslim women’s constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination and set a precedent for reform in personal laws.
