Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 07 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
A. Background and significance of the issue
The issue of 'talaq-e-biddat' or triple talaq, a practice among Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school, has been a contentious and long-standing debate in India. This practice allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife by simply pronouncing the word 'talaq' (divorce) three times in one go, without following the prescribed procedure of divorce as per the Quran and Sharia law.
The practice of triple talaq has been widely criticized as being arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the fundamental rights of Muslim women. It has been argued that it leaves women in a vulnerable position, as they can be divorced at the whim of their husbands without any reasonable cause or opportunity for reconciliation. This practice has been seen as discriminatory and against the principles of gender equality and dignity enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The issue has gained significant attention and has been the subject of intense public debate, with various women's rights groups, activists, and organizations demanding its abolition. The matter has also been taken up by the courts, with several High Courts ruling against the validity of triple talaq.
B. Overview of the case and the Supreme Court's involvement
The Supreme Court of India became involved in this matter after a Division Bench of the Court, in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), took note of newspaper articles highlighting the issue of gender discrimination faced by Muslim women due to the practice of triple talaq. The Division Bench observed that despite the constitutional guarantee of equality, Muslim women were subjected to discrimination and lacked safeguards against arbitrary divorce and denial of dignity and security.
The Court felt that the issue needed to be examined separately as a public interest litigation (PIL) and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. Subsequently, several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of triple talaq and seeking its abolition.
The Supreme Court constituted a five-judge Constitution Bench to examine the legality of the practice of triple talaq and its conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The Bench heard extensive arguments from various parties, including the petitioners, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), and the Union of India.
The case gained significant attention and sparked a nationwide debate on the issue, with various stakeholders presenting their perspectives and arguments before the Supreme Court.## II. Understanding Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat)
A. Definition and Historical Background
Triple Talaq, also known as Talaq-e-Biddat, is a form of divorce in Islamic law where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife by pronouncing the word "talaq" three times in succession. This practice is considered irregular and controversial, as it allows for an instantaneous and irrevocable termination of the marriage without any scope for reconciliation or arbitration.
The practice of Triple Talaq is believed to have originated during the second century after the advent of Islam, during the reign of the Umayyad monarchs. It is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran or the Hadith (the recorded sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad). Instead, it is a later innovation that crept into Muslim tradition, possibly as a way for men to circumvent the prescribed procedures for divorce laid down in the Quran.
B. Differences between Talaq-e-Biddat, Talaqe-Ahsan, and Talaq-e-Hasan
In Islamic law, there are three recognized forms of divorce initiated by the husband:
1. Talaq-e-Ahsan: This is considered the most proper form of divorce. It involves a single pronouncement of divorce by the husband during a period of tuhr (the period between two menstrual cycles when the wife is not menstruating). This is followed by a waiting period called iddat, during which the couple can reconcile if they wish. If they do not reconcile during the iddat period, the divorce becomes irrevocable.
2. Talaq-e-Hasan: This is considered a proper form of divorce, though not as ideal as Talaqe-Ahsan. It involves three successive pronouncements of divorce by the husband, with each pronouncement made during a separate tuhr period. After the third pronouncement, the divorce becomes irrevocable.
3. Talaq-e-Biddat (Triple Talaq): This is considered an irregular and sinful form of divorce, though it is still recognized as valid by some schools of Islamic jurisprudence. It involves the husband pronouncing the word "talaq" three times in quick succession, either in a single utterance or in three separate utterances within the same tuhr period. This form of divorce is instantaneous and irrevocable, leaving no room for reconciliation or arbitration.
C. The Practice of Triple Talaq in India
In India, the practice of Triple Talaq has been prevalent among a section of the Muslim community, particularly those following the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. While the Quran and the Hadith do not explicitly mention or endorse this practice, it has been recognized as valid by some Islamic scholars and has been upheld by certain court judgments in the past.
However, the practice of Triple Talaq has been widely criticized for being arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it allows Muslim men to unilaterally terminate a marriage without following due process or providing any opportunity for reconciliation. It has been seen as a violation of the fundamental rights of Muslim women, particularly the right to equality and dignity.
In recent years, there have been numerous legal challenges and debates surrounding the validity and constitutionality of Triple Talaq in India. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and struck it down as being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.## III. Legal Perspective
A. The Shariat Act of 1937 and its implications
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the "Shariat Act") was enacted to put an end to the oppressive and discriminatory customs and usages prevalent in the Muslim community. Section 2 of the Act is particularly relevant in the present context. It states:
"Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."
After the enactment of the Shariat Act, the law applicable to Muslims regarding matters such as marriage, dissolution of marriage (including talaq), maintenance, dower, etc., shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) and nothing else. The Act did not codify or describe the specific grounds and procedures for talaq; it simply made Shariat the "rule of decision" in such matters.
The Shariat Act did not incorporate or legislate on the manner in which questions related to marriage, divorce, talaq, etc., had to be dealt with according to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). It merely recognized the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) as the "rule of decision" in these matters. Therefore, for the settlement of disputes among Muslims, it would first need to be determined what the Muslim Personal Law was concerning the particular dispute, and that would constitute the "rule of decision" as per Section 2 of the 1937 Act.
B. Constitutional challenges
The petitioners contended that after the enactment of the Shariat Act, the questions and subjects covered by it, including "dissolution of marriage, including talaq," ceased to be 'personal law' and got transformed into 'statutory law.' Consequently, they argued that these matters should conform to the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 21.
However, the respondents argued that the Shariat Act did not confer statutory status on Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). It merely perpetuated Muslim Personal Law as the "rule of decision" and clarified ambiguities caused by customs and usages. The respondents contended that Muslim Personal Law did not metamorphose into a statute and, therefore, could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights applicable to State actions.
The Court concluded that the limited purpose of Section 2 of the Shariat Act was to negate the overriding effect of customs and usages over Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). The Act did not lay down or declare the Muslim Personal Law; it merely preserved it as it existed from time immemorial. Therefore, the Court held that the Shariat Act did not transform Muslim Personal Law into statutory law, and it could not be challenged as violating the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution, which are applicable to State actions.# IV. Judicial Pronouncements
A. The Rashid Ahmad case and its significance
The Rashid Ahmad case, decided by the Privy Council in 1932, upheld the validity of 'talaq-ebiddat' (triple talaq) under Muslim personal law. The key points regarding this case are:
1. Anisa Khatun's husband, Ghyas-ud-din, pronounced 'talaq-e-biddat' to divorce her.
2. Despite this, they continued to cohabit for 15 years, and Anisa Khatun gave birth to five children during this period.
3. The Privy Council held that the marriage was dissolved immediately upon the pronouncement of 'talaq-e-biddat', and the subsequent cohabitation and children were illegitimate.
4. This judgment established the legal validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' under Muslim personal law, as it was understood and applied at that time.
B. High Court judgments (Jiauddin Ahmed, Rukia Khatun, Masroor Ahmed, and Nazeer cases)
After the Rashid Ahmad case, several High Courts examined the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' and arrived at different conclusions:
1. Jiauddin Ahmed case (Gauhati High Court, 1981): A single judge bench disapproved of 'talaq-e-biddat', relying on Quranic verses, hadiths, and principles of Islamic law. It held that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and preceded by attempts at reconciliation.
2. Rukia Khatun case (Gauhati High Court, 1981): A division bench reiterated the view in the Jiauddin Ahmed case and expressly dissented from the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts' decisions upholding 'talaq-e-biddat'.
3. Masroor Ahmed case (Delhi High Court): A single judge bench, relying on hadiths, held that 'talaq-e-biddat' was not in consonance with Muslim personal law and laid down conditions for a valid talaq, including proof of pronouncement, reasonable cause, and attempts at reconciliation.
4. Nazeer case (Kerala High Court): A single judge bench highlighted the plight of Muslim women due to the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' and disapproved of the practice, stating that it was not in accordance with the Quran.
C. The Supreme Court's approach and analysis
The Supreme Court, in the present case, examined the Rashid Ahmad judgment and the subsequent High Court decisions on 'talaq-e-biddat'. The Court's approach and analysis can be summarized as follows:
1. The Court acknowledged that despite the Rashid Ahmad judgment, the issue of 'talaq-ebiddat' needed a fresh examination in light of subsequent developments.
2. The Court noted the contradictions in the hadiths relied upon by the parties and refrained from recording a finding on whether 'talaq-e-biddat' is affirmed by hadiths.
3. The Court held that 'talaq-e-biddat' is integral to the religious denomination of Sunnis belonging to the Hanafi school and is a part of their faith, having been followed for more than 1400 years. Therefore, it has to be accepted as a constituent of their personal law.
4. The Court disagreed with the Privy Council's view in the Rashid Ahmad case, holding that the opinion upholding 'talaq-e-biddat' as finally and irrevocably severing the matrimonial tie needs to be considered incorrect.
5. The Court acknowledged the High Court judgments that disapproved of 'talaq-e-biddat' but refrained from declaring the practice as invalid, as it is a constituent of Muslim personal law.
In summary, while recognizing the concerns raised by various High Courts, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' as a part of Muslim personal law, albeit disagreeing with the Privy Council's interpretation of its effect.# V. Hadiths and Quranic Verses
A. Interpretations and authenticity of Hadiths cited by different parties
The Supreme Court examined various Hadiths (sayings and traditions of Prophet Muhammad) cited by the petitioners and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to support their respective arguments regarding the validity of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat).
Hadiths cited by the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the following Hadiths to argue that triple talaq is not valid according to Islamic principles:
1. A Hadith from Sahih Muslim compiled by AlHafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Azim Al-Mundhiri, which states that during the time of Prophet Muhammad, the first Caliph Abu Bakr, and the second Caliph Umar, three consecutive utterances of talaq were treated as a single pronouncement of divorce.
2. A Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud, which states that divorce is the most detestable of all permissible things in the sight of Allah.
3. A Hadith from Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, which reports that when a person pronounced triple talaq in one sitting, Caliph Umar would punish him by beating and then separate the couple.
4. A Hadith from Sunan Bayhaqi, which narrates an incident where Prophet Muhammad asked a person who had pronounced triple talaq to take back his wife, as he was playing with the words of Allah.
The petitioners argued that these Hadiths, being closer to the time of Prophet Muhammad, are more authentic and reliable than the Hadiths relied upon by the AIMPLB.
Hadiths cited by the AIMPLB
The AIMPLB relied on the following Hadiths to support the validity of triple talaq:
1. A Hadith from Daraqutni, which states that when Hafs bin Mughaira resorted to triple talaq, Prophet Muhammad d considered it valid and separated the couple.
2. A Hadith from Daraqutni, which reports that Prophet Muhammad said that whoever resorts to triple talaq, whether one, two, or three, his divorce would be made effective.
3. A Hadith from Sunan Bayhaqi, which narrates an incident where Hasan bin Ali pronounced triple talaq on his wife, and he stated that he had heard from his father that Prophet Muhammad had said that if a person pronounces triple talaq, the wife would not be permissible for him until she marries another husband.
The AIMPLB argued that these Hadiths, although later in time, are authentic and support the validity of triple talaq.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of distortions in Hadiths and the varying degrees of reliability and authenticity of different Hadiths. It observed that the Hadiths relied upon by the AIMPLB appeared to be distortions when compared to the more authentic Hadiths cited by the petitioners.
B. Quranic verses related to divorce and their interpretations
The Supreme Court examined various verses from the Quran related to divorce and their interpretations by different scholars and jurists.
Quranic verses cited by the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the following Quranic verses to argue against the validity of triple talaq:
1. Verse 229 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which states that divorce is permissible twice, and after the second divorce, either the husband must retain the wife honorably or release her with kindness.
2. Verse 230 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which states that if a husband divorces his wife for the third time, she shall not be lawful for him until she marries another husband.
3. Verse 232 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which advises against preventing divorced women from remarrying their former husbands if they mutually agree on equitable terms.
4. Verse 1 of Surah Al-Talaq, which instructs the Prophet Muhammad on the proper procedure for divorce, including counting the prescribed periods and not turning the wives out of their houses.
The petitioners argued that these verses establish a procedure for divorce, which includes attempts at reconciliation and a waiting period (iddat), and do not support the concept of instant and irrevocable divorce through triple talaq.
Quranic verses cited by the AIMPLB
The AIMPLB relied on the following Quranic verses to support the validity of triple talaq:
1. Verse 71 of Surah Al-Hashr, which emphasizes the importance of obeying the Prophet Muhammad.
2. Verse 20 of Surah Al-Anfal, which instructs believers to obey Allah and His Messenger.
3. Verse 64 of Surah Al-Nisa, which states that whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed followed the right path.
4. Verse 13 of Surah Al-Anfal, which warns against becoming hostile to Allah and His Messenger.
5. Verse 36 of Surah Al-Ahzab, which states that it is not open for believers to have a choice in a matter once Allah and His Messenger have decided it.
6. Verse 115 of Surah Al-Nisa, which warns against following a path other than that of the believers after the right path has become clear.
The AIMPLB argued that these verses emphasize the importance of obeying the Prophet Muhammad and following his teachings, which include the recognition of triple talaq as a valid form of divorce.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the different interpretations of the Quranic verses and Hadiths by various scholars and jurists. It recognized the complexity of the issue and the need for a careful examination of the sources and their interpretations.# VI. Global Perspective
A. Reforms and abolition of Triple Talaq in other Muslim-majority countries
The report highlights that a large number of Muslim countries or countries with significant Muslim populations, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, and Sri Lanka, have undertaken significant reforms and regulated their divorce laws. Many of these countries have abolished or restricted the practice of triple talaq (talaq-ebiddat).
Some specific examples mentioned in the report:
1. Pakistan and Bangladesh require a man to obtain permission from an Arbitration Council before divorcing his wife.
2. In Tunisia and Turkey, extra-judicial divorce like triple talaq is not recognized.
3. In Afghanistan, if three pronouncements of talaq are made in one sitting, it is considered invalid.
4. In Morocco and Indonesia, divorce proceedings take place in secular courts, procedures of mediation and reconciliation are encouraged, and men and women are considered equal in matters of family and divorce.
5. In Indonesia, divorce is a judicial process where those marrying under Islamic Law can approach the Religious Court for a divorce.
6. In Iran and Sri Lanka, divorce can be granted by a Qazi (Islamic judge) and/or a court, only after reconciliation efforts have failed.
The report suggests that even Islamic theocratic states have undergone reforms in this area of law, indicating that the practice of triple talaq is not an essential religious practice.
B. Implications for India and the potential for legislative reform
The report argues that if Muslim countries have undergone extensive reforms to abolish or restrict the practice of triple talaq, then in a secular republic like India, there is no reason to deny Muslim women the rights available to women in other parts of the Muslim world.
The fact that Muslim countries have reformed their laws is presented as evidence that the practice of triple talaq is not an essential religious practice and can be subject to legislative reform.
The report concludes by stating that it is imperative for the Indian state to consider formulating a codified law to govern the matter of divorce among Muslims, without violating the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. It suggests that legislative intervention, as permitted under Articles 25(2) and 44 read with Entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, is the appropriate way to address the issue of triple talaq in India.
The report draws attention to those who resist any form of reform of Muslim personal laws in India, urging them to consider verses from the Quran that emphasize the importance of truth, justice, and reform.
VII. Way Forward
A. Potential outcomes and implications of the Supreme Court's judgment
The Supreme Court's judgment on the issue of triple talaq has far-reaching implications for Muslim personal law and gender equality in India. By declaring the practice of instant triple talaq as unconstitutional and invalid, the Court has taken a significant step towards protecting the rights of Muslim women and upholding the principles of gender justice enshrined in the Constitution.
However, the Court has refrained from invalidating other forms of talaq, such as talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e-hasan, which are also based on the unilateral decision of the husband. This leaves room for further legal challenges and debates on the validity of these practices in the future.
The judgment has also highlighted the need for comprehensive reforms in Muslim personal law to bring it in line with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. While the Court has acknowledged the importance of preserving religious freedom and personal laws, it has also emphasized the need to balance these rights with the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly women.
B. Prospects for legislative action and the Uniform Civil Code
The Supreme Court's judgment has reiterated the need for the Parliament to take legislative action to address the issues related to Muslim personal law and the practice of triple talaq. The Court has suggested that the Parliament should consider enacting a law to regulate the practice of divorce among Muslims, ensuring that it is in conformity with the constitutional principles of gender equality and non-discrimination.
The judgment has also revived the debate on the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code, as envisaged in Article 44 of the Constitution. While the Court has refrained from directly addressing this issue, it has emphasized the need for reforms in personal laws to ensure gender justice and equality.
However, the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code is a complex and sensitive issue, as it involves balancing the rights of different religious communities and their personal laws. Any attempt to introduce a Uniform Civil Code is likely to face opposition from various quarters, particularly from those who view it as an infringement on their religious freedom and cultural identity.
C. Balancing religious freedom and gender equality
The Supreme Court's judgment has highlighted the inherent tension between religious freedom and gender equality in the context of personal laws. While the Court has upheld the constitutional protection of personal laws under Article 25, it has also emphasized the need to ensure that these laws do not violate the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly women.
The Court has recognized that personal laws cannot be immune from constitutional scrutiny and that they must conform to the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity enshrined in the Constitution. This implies that religious practices and personal laws that are discriminatory or violative of fundamental rights may be subject to judicial review and potential reform.
However, the Court has also acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and the need for a balanced approach that respects religious freedom while upholding the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination. This delicate balance will require careful consideration and dialogue among various stakeholders, including religious communities, civil society organizations, and policymakers.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment on triple talaq has opened the door for further reforms in Muslim personal law and has reignited the debate on the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code. While the path forward is complex and fraught with challenges, it presents an opportunity to address long-standing issues of gender inequality and discrimination in personal laws, while respecting the diversity of religious and cultural traditions in India.# VIII. Conclusion
A. Summary of Key Points
The key points regarding the issue of 'talaq-ebiddat' (triple talaq) can be summarized as follows:
1. 'Talaq-e-biddat' is a matter of 'personal law' for Sunni Muslims belonging to the Hanafi school and has been practiced by them for over 1400 years. It is an integral part of their faith and religious beliefs.
2. The practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' does not violate the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice and propagate religion. It is not contrary to public order, morality, or health.
3. As a component of 'personal law', 'talaq-ebiddat' has the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution, and the court cannot invalidate or declare it unacceptable, as it would amount to denying the rights expressly protected under this Article.
4. The framers of the Constitution consciously excluded 'personal laws' from the purview of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution, recognizing the existence of separate personal laws for different religious communities.
5. Any reform or change in 'personal law' can only be brought about through legislative intervention by the State, as per Articles 25(2) and 44 read with Entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
6. International conventions and declarations are not applicable in this case, as 'talaq-e-biddat' is a component of 'personal law' and has the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution.
B. Significance for Indian Society and the Legal System
The issue of 'talaq-e-biddat' is significant for Indian society and the legal system for several reasons:
1. Secularism and Pluralism: The Indian Constitution recognizes and protects the pluralistic nature of Indian society, where different religious communities have the right to follow their respective personal laws. The court's decision upholds this principle of secularism and respect for diversity.
2. Constitutional Principles: The judgment reinforces the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the limited role of the judiciary in matters of personal laws. It emphasizes that any reform or change in personal laws should come through legislative intervention, respecting the boundaries set by the Constitution.
3. Gender Justice: While the practice of 'talaqe-biddat' has been criticized as discriminatory towards Muslim women, the court's decision highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for a balanced approach that respects religious beliefs and personal laws while also ensuring gender justice.
4. Legal Precedent: The judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving personal laws and the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in such matters. It clarifies the constitutional position on personal laws and their relationship with fundamental rights.
5. Societal Debate: The issue has sparked a nationwide debate on the need for reforms in personal laws, particularly those perceived as discriminatory towards women. The court's decision is likely to fuel further discussions and potentially prompt legislative action on the matter.
Overall, the judgment on 'talaq-e-biddat' has significant implications for Indian society and the legal system, as it navigates the delicate balance between protecting religious freedoms, upholding constitutional principles, and ensuring gender justice within the framework of personal laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments