Author : Vidhika Chaudhary, a student in Gautam Buddha University 

Introduction

The Shayara Bano case, officially known as “Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others”, is a milestone in Indian legal history, addressing the practice of triple talaq among Muslims. Shayara Bano, the petitioner, questioned the constitutionality of three practices: triple talaq, polygamy, and nikah halala.

Triple talaq allowed a Muslim man to divorce his wife instantly by saying “talaq” three times in one sitting, without any judicial oversight. This practice was widely criticized for being arbitrary and discriminatory against women.

In August 2017, the Supreme Court of India, in a 3-2 majority decision, declared triple talaq unconstitutional, stating it violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The court also ruled that triple talaq is not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion).

This landmark judgment was a major step towards gender equality and women’s rights in India. It led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which formally abolished the practice of triple talaq.

Triple Talaq and Nikah Halala

Triple talaq, also known as talaq-e-bid’ah, is a practice in Islamic law where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife by uttering the word “talaq” three times in quick succession. This method of divorce requires no intervention from a judicial authority and leaves no room for reconciliation between the couple, making the divorce final and irrevocable immediately.

This practice has been highly controversial and has faced significant criticism for its arbitrary nature and the disproportionate power it grants to men over women in marital relationships. Critics argue that it violates the principles of justice and equality, as it allows a man to unilaterally end a marriage without considering the wife’s consent or providing her with a fair opportunity to be heard.

In 2017, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutionality of triple talaq in the landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others. The court’s majority decision declared triple talaq unconstitutional, finding it in violation of several fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Nikah halala is a practice in Islamic law where a divorced woman must marry another man, consummate the marriage, and then get divorced again before she can remarry her former husband. This practice comes into play particularly in cases where a husband has divorced his wife through triple talaq.

The unconstitutionality of nikah halala in India is grounded in its conflict with several fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Firstly, it violates Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality. By imposing such a discriminatory and demeaning condition exclusively on women, nikah halala contradicts the principle of gender equality. Secondly, it infringes upon Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity. Forcing a woman to undergo such a process undermines her dignity and autonomy.

Case Analysis 

The Shayara Bano case is a landmark judgment in the Indian legal system that addressed the constitutionality of triple talaq (talaq-e-bid’ah) among Muslims. Shayara Bano, the petitioner, was married for 15 years before her husband divorced her by pronouncing “talaq” three times in one sitting. She challenged the practice, arguing that it was discriminatory and violated her fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

Facts

Shayara Bano married Rizwan Ahmad in 2002, and their marriage lasted for about 15 years. In 2016, she received a letter from Rizwan informing her that he had divorced her by pronouncing “talaq” three times consecutively, a practice known as triple talaq or talaq-e-bid’ah, which allows a Muslim man to instantly divorce his wife without any legal intervention. Feeling aggrieved by this sudden and unilateral divorce, Shayara Bano filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutionality of triple talaq. She argued that the practice violated her fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

Legal Questions:

The case primarily revolved around three crucial questions:

1. Is the practice of triple talaq constitutional?

2. Does it violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 25 (Freedom of Religion)?

3. Should the practice be abolished or reformed?

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1.Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Shayara Bano argued that triple talaq was arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. She contended that it undermined women’s dignity and equality by allowing men to unilaterally and instantaneously divorce their wives.

2.Not Essential Religious Practice:

It was argued that triple talaq is not an essential part of Islamic practice. The petitioner pointed out that many Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have reformed or abolished the practice, indicating it is not fundamental to Islam.

3.Historical Context:

The petitioner highlighted historical and religious texts to demonstrate that the practice of triple talaq was not originally part of Islamic teachings and that it evolved over time, often being misused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1.Personal Law Protection:

The respondents, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), argued that triple talaq is part of the Sharia law, which is protected under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion). They contended that the court should not interfere with religious practices.

2.Legislative Domain:

The respondents also argued that any change in personal laws should come from the legislature, not the judiciary. They emphasized that judicial intervention in religious matters could set a dangerous precedent.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on August 22, 2017, with a 3-2 majority. The judgment was divided as follows:

Majority Opinion

1.Unconstitutional:

The majority held that triple talaq is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The court observed that the practice was arbitrary and lacked any rational justification.

2.Not Essential Religious Practice:

The court ruled that triple talaq is not an essential part of Islamic practice protected under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion). The judgment pointed out that the practice has been abolished or reformed in several Muslim-majority countries.

3.Judicial Responsibility:

The court emphasized that it has the responsibility to protect fundamental rights and ensure that personal laws comply with the Constitution.

Minority Opinion

The minority opinion, while acknowledging the issues with triple talaq, suggested that the practice should be addressed through legislative reform rather than judicial intervention. They argued that Parliament should take the lead in enacting laws to regulate or abolish the practice.

Conclusion:

The Shayara Bano case is a landmark judgment that underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights and promoting gender equality. By declaring triple talaq unconstitutional, the Supreme Court not only upheld the principles of equality and justice but also set a precedent for future reforms in personal laws. The case highlights the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation and the ongoing struggle to balance religious freedoms with individual rights in a diverse society like India.

FAQs

1. What is triple talaq?

Triple talaq, also known as talaq-e-bid’ah, is a practice in Islamic law where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife by saying “talaq” three times in quick succession, without any judicial oversight.

2. Why did Shayara Bano challenge triple talaq?

Shayara Bano challenged triple talaq because she argued it was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating her fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including the Right to Equality and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

3. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on triple talaq?

The Supreme Court ruled that triple talaq was unconstitutional, stating it violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution and was not protected under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion).

4. What are nikah halala and its implications?

Nikah halala is a practice where a divorced woman must marry another man, consummate the marriage, and then get divorced again before she can remarry her former husband. This practice is criticized for being discriminatory and violating women’s dignity.

5. What was the impact of the Shayara Bano case?

The impact of the Shayara Bano case was significant as it led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which formally abolished the practice of triple talaq, advancing gender equality and women’s rights in India.

6. What articles of the Indian Constitution were cited in the ruling?

The ruling cited-

Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 

Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 

Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) 

of the Indian Constitution.