CASE NAME : SHAYARA BANO AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
AUTHOR : VARNIKA VERMA
AIR 2017 SC 4609
(2017) 9 SCC 12017 (9) SCALE 178
2017 (5) Bom CR 481
2017 (7) SCJ 477
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Triple Talaq, which is also known as Talaq-e-biddat in Islam, is an instant divorce. This allowed a Muslim man to divorce his wife immediately by uttering the word Talaq, three times in any form any language and in any mode, and this practice was considered to be legal.
The tradition of talaq-e-biddat came out to be a weapon to victimize woman of Islam. Thus, with the span of time this topic became a subject of high controversy and debate in the whole country. Hence, there is a ban on this practice in India after the landmark judgment was passed in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India.
- Shayara Bao was married to her husband for 15 years but due to their relationship turned out to be worsening her husband divorced her in 2016 through the method of triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat.
- She went to the Supreme Court of India for seeking justice, stating that this concept is unconstitutional in the eyes of law.
- She alleged that the act has violated several fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution of India such as equality before law, prohibition of discrimination, protection of life and personal liberty and freedom of religion provided Article 14, 15(1), 21, and Article 25 respectively.
- Her petition also highlighted how these traditional practices of Islamic men hinder the women’s rights of Muslim Women as well. Various NGOs and even the Union Government of India were supporting the cause of this petition.
Whether the practice of triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat is valid and is being protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion”?
The Supreme Court laid down this landmark judgment on 22nd of August, 2017 with 3:2 majority holding the practice of Triple Talaaq to be unconstitutional. The concurring opinion was that that Triple Talaq is not an essential religious practice while the dissenting opinion found this practice to be an essential religious practice.
Since the majority opinion was against the practice the court held that that triple talaq is not protected by the exception laid down in Article 25 and is violative of Article 14. Hence, the practice of triple talaq was banned.