The Triple Talaq Judgment: Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017 SC] Notes | Study Legal Reasoning for CLAT - CLAT

• We have arrived at the conclusion that ‘talaq-e-biddat’ is a matter of ‘personal law’ of Sunni Muslims belonging to the Hanafi School.  It constitutes a matter of their faith. It has been practiced by them for at least 1400 years.
• We have also come to the conclusion that the practice being a component of ‘personal law’ has the protection of Article 25.
• This is a case which presents a situation where this Court should exercise its discretion to issue appropriate directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. We therefore hereby direct, the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to ‘talaq-e-biddat’.
• Till such time as legislation in the matter is considered, we are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing ‘talaq-e-biddat’ as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship.

• The simple question that needs to be answered in this case is only whether triple talaq has any legal sanctity. That is no more res integra. This Court in Shamim Ara v. State of UP has held, though not in so many words, that triple talaq lacks legal sanctity. Therefore, in terms of Article 141, Shamim Ara is the law that is applicable in India.
• I find it extremely difficult to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the practice of triple talaq has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question and that the same is part of their personal law.
• Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible. The whole purpose of the 1937 Act was to declare Shariat as the rule of decision and to discontinue anti-Shariat practices with respect to subjects enumerated in Section 2 which include talaq.
• Hence, there cannot be any Constitutional protection to such a practice.

• Given the fact that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is obvious that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place.
• It is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq is set aside.