Supreme Court dismisses appeal challenging authenticity of ‘Triple Talaq’

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal challenging the constitutional validity and authenticity of the practice of ‘Triple Talaq’, reaffirming the legal position established through previous rulings and legislation. The decision marks a reiteration of the judiciary’s stance against instant divorce practices within Muslim personal law and reinforces the secular constitutional framework protecting gender equality and justice.

Background

The practice of ‘Triple Talaq’ (formally known as talaq-e-biddat) refers to the pronouncement of the word talaq three times by a Muslim husband, instantly dissolving the marriage without the wife’s consent or involvement of legal procedure. Traditionally practised by a section of Muslims in India, the system had long been criticised for violating women’s rights and contradicting the principles of natural justice.
In 2017, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the landmark case Shayara Bano v. Union of India, declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional and void, holding that it was neither sanctioned by the Qur’an nor an essential part of Islamic practice. The Court found that such a practice was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Following this judgment, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 was enacted by Parliament, formally criminalising the pronouncement of instant triple talaq and prescribing imprisonment for offenders.

The Present Appeal

The latest appeal before the Supreme Court sought to challenge the authenticity and validity of the 2017 verdict, arguing that the earlier decision interfered with religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. The petitioners claimed that the practice was a matter of personal law and thus should not be subjected to judicial scrutiny or legislative prohibition.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal outright, observing that the question had already been conclusively settled in the Shayara Bano case and that the 2019 Act further cemented the constitutional position. The Court reiterated that once a practice is declared unconstitutional and a corresponding statutory framework is enacted, the judiciary cannot reopen the issue unless there is new and substantial constitutional ground.

Judicial Observations

The Bench emphasised that religious freedom cannot override fundamental rights, particularly when a practice violates the principles of gender equality, dignity, and justice. The judges noted that talaq-e-biddat had already been deemed arbitrary, discriminatory, and un-Islamic by religious scholars and jurists across different schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Furthermore, the Court held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, enacted after extensive parliamentary debate, had provided a clear legislative expression of the state’s intent to safeguard women’s rights within marriage and divorce. Therefore, any appeal challenging the legitimacy of the earlier judgment lacked merit and constitutional basis.

Implications of the Dismissal

The Supreme Court’s dismissal carries far-reaching legal and social implications:

• It reaffirms the constitutional supremacy over personal and religious law where fundamental rights are involved.
• It upholds women’s rights within the Muslim community, ensuring protection from arbitrary and unilateral divorce.
• It provides clarity and finality in legal interpretation, preventing recurring litigation over the same issue.
• It strengthens judicial consistency, demonstrating the Court’s commitment to gender justice and equality.

The verdict also sends a broader message that any attempt to revive or legitimise practices inconsistent with constitutional values will not be entertained by the judiciary.

Reactions and Public Discourse

Legal experts and women’s rights activists welcomed the decision, viewing it as a reaffirmation of India’s constitutional ethos and a continuation of reform within personal laws. Many commentators highlighted that the ruling underscores the Court’s role as a guardian of equality and justice.
However, some conservative voices within certain religious circles expressed discontent, contending that the judgment undermines community autonomy and religious tradition. Nonetheless, the overwhelming consensus within legal and social frameworks supports the Court’s interpretation as consistent with modern constitutional governance.

Significance

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal challenging the authenticity of Triple Talaq re-establishes the primacy of constitutional rights over personal law practices that perpetuate inequality. It reinforces the idea that religion, while protected under the Constitution, cannot be invoked to justify practices that compromise human dignity and gender parity.