Shayara Bano V. Union Of India On Triple Talaq
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case
Facts:
Shayara Bano challenged the practice of “Triple Talaq” (talaq-e-biddat) — the instant and unilateral Islamic divorce where a Muslim man can divorce his wife by pronouncing “talaq” three times in one sitting.
She argued that the practice:
Violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).
Is arbitrary, cruel, and violates the dignity of Muslim women.
Is not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (Freedom of religion).
Issues:
Whether instant Triple Talaq is constitutional.
Whether Triple Talaq is protected as an essential religious practice.
Whether Triple Talaq violates fundamental rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared instant Triple Talaq unconstitutional and struck it down as arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
It held that Triple Talaq is not an essential religious practice.
The Court allowed the government to frame a law regulating talaq but banned instant Triple Talaq in the meantime.
Significance:
Landmark judgment for women’s rights and gender justice in Muslim personal law.
Reinforced that personal laws are subject to constitutional morality and fundamental rights.
Set precedent for judicial intervention in religious practices violating constitutional guarantees.
Related Case 1: Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Facts:
Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code after her husband refused to support her post-divorce.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, holding that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period under Section 125.
The Court emphasized secular laws (CPC) over personal law in matters of maintenance.
Significance:
Sparked a political debate and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which limited maintenance to the iddat period.
Highlighted the conflict between secular laws and personal laws.
Set the stage for later challenges to gender-biased personal laws like Triple Talaq.
Related Case 2: Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
Facts:
Challenging the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, which restricted maintenance to iddat, the Supreme Court interpreted it to ensure maintenance for divorced Muslim women beyond iddat.
Judgment:
The Court held that the Act should be interpreted harmoniously with Section 125 CPC.
Ensured divorced Muslim women receive fair and reasonable maintenance.
Significance:
Strengthened protections for Muslim women’s rights.
Showed the Court’s role in reading personal laws to align with constitutional principles.
Related Case 3: Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) (Broader Constitutional Principle)
This is the same case as above, but it’s worth noting the Court’s broader observations:
Personal laws cannot override fundamental rights.
Laws must be read consistently with constitutional morality.
Women’s equality must be ensured even within personal laws.
Related Case 4: Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1952)
Facts:
This early constitutional case dealt with discriminatory personal laws and challenged their validity under the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that personal laws cannot contravene constitutional guarantees of equality.
Stressed that where personal laws violate fundamental rights, constitutional law prevails.
Significance:
Early precedent supporting intervention in personal laws to uphold constitutional rights.
Laid foundation for later judgments like Shayara Bano.
Related Case 5: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Adultery Case
Facts:
Though not directly about Triple Talaq, this case deals with gender justice and personal laws.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC criminalizing adultery as unconstitutional for being gender discriminatory.
Emphasized individual autonomy and equality.
Significance:
Reinforced the judiciary’s stance on eliminating gender bias in laws.
Contributed to the evolving jurisprudence on gender justice in personal laws.
Summary
Shayara Bano v. Union of India is a landmark case striking down the practice of instant Triple Talaq as unconstitutional.
It builds on prior cases addressing the tension between personal laws and fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that constitutional morality, gender equality, and individual rights must prevail over discriminatory religious practices.
These cases reflect India’s judicial approach toward harmonizing personal laws with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments