Shayara Bano v UOI (Triple Talaq Case)

Citation: AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC) 

Bench: Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman,  Justice Uday Lalit, and Justice K.M. Joseph. 

Petitioner: Shayara Bano and others 

Respondent: Union of India, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Rizwan Ahmed Date Of Judgment: 22nd August 2017 

FACTS OF THE CASE:  

Shayara Bano was a muslim girl who was married to Rizwan Ahmed for 15 years. In  2016, he divorced her without any justifiable reason by the way of triple talaq. Shayara  Bano in response to him filed a writ petition in SC stating talaq-e-biddat along with  practices of polygamy and nikah halala as unconstitutional. She stated that they infringe  upon the fundamental rights of women like Article 14,15, 21 and 25. Women’s rights  organisations like BEBAK collective and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan1 were in  her favor whereas on the other hand the opposition i.e. All India Muslim Personal law  argued that Muslim Law not being a codified law is not subject to judicial review. Additionally divorce being a religious practice under article 25 is protected.  

ISSUES:  

1. Is the instantaneous triple talaq, or talaq-e-biddat, a fundamental aspect of Muslim  personal law that is safeguarded by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution? 2. Is the triple talaq unlawful and does it violate the fundamental rights protected by the  Constitution? 

ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER, SHAYARA BANO:  

Fundamental Rights Violated: According to Shayara Bano, the practice of triple talaq  infringes upon her fundamental rights as stipulated in the Indian Constitution. She specifically  argued that by giving Muslim males the unilateral and arbitrary ability to divorce their wives  without any judicial review or approval from the wife, it breaches Article 14, which guarantees  

1IPleaders blog, Shayara Bano vs UOI, October 21, 2022. 

equality before the law. Article 15, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, race,  caste, sex, or place of birth, is also violated, according to her argument. By treating Muslim  women differently from their male counterparts and women of other religions, triple talaq  discriminates against them. She further asserted that triple talaq violates her rights to life and  liberty under Article 21 as it questions her dignity and insecurity. 

Gender Discrimination: The petitioner stressed that triple talaq allows men to dissolve a  marriage unilaterally, giving women no say or redress, thereby perpetuating gender inequity  within the Muslim community. Bano claims that this behavior is fundamentally patriarchal and  perpetuates the oppression of women. She maintained that the Indian Constitution’s cherished  ideals of justice, equity, and dignity are incompatible with this kind of gender discrimination. 

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against  Women (CEDAW), to which India is a signatory, is one of the international human rights  conventions that Shayara Bano also cited. She claimed that these international standards, which  forbid discrimination against women in any way, are broken by triple talaq. The petitioner  sought the court to invalidate triple talaq because it is incompatible with India’s commitment  to gender equality and to take these international duties into account while interpreting the  Constitution. 

Not a Required Religious Practice: Bano argued that since triple talaq is not required by the  Quran, it is not a necessary religious practice in Islam. She drew attention to the fact that a  number of Islamic nations, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, had outlawed the practice with  little effect on the religious identity of their respective Muslim populations. She maintained  that Article 25, which protects the freedom of religion, did not apply to triple talaq because it  is not a fundamental aspect of Islam. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:  

Union of India:  

Unconstitutional Practice: In defense of Shayara Bano, the Union of India claimed that triple  talaq breaches fundamental rights such as equality (Article 14) and individual liberty (Article  21). They argued that the practice is discriminatory, arbitrary, and not a necessary religious 

practice, citing the elimination of the ritual in some Islamic nations without compromising  religious identity. The administration stressed that personal laws need to be reviewed by judges,  particularly if they violate constitutional rights. 

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB): 

Protection of Religious Freedom: The AIMPLB argued that triple talaq is an integral part of  Muslim personal law, protected under Article 25 (freedom of religion). They maintained that  the practice, rooted in religious texts and traditions, is an essential religious practice and should  not be interfered with by the judiciary. The Board argued that any changes to Muslim personal  law should be made by the legislature, cautioning against judicial activism in matters of faith. 

ANALYSIS:  

Impact on Gender Justice: The Shayara Bano case ruling by the Supreme Court was a major  advancement for gender justice in India. The Muslim community has long faced gender  discrimination; the Court addressed this issue by ruling that the practice of quick triple talaq is  illegal. By guaranteeing that Muslim women would no longer be vulnerable to an unjust and  unilateral divorce without access to the judicial system, the ruling gave them more authority.  This decision is consistent with the larger objective of safeguarding women’s rights and  attaining gender parity, as stipulated in the Indian Constitution. 

Protecting Fundamental Rights while Encouraging Religious Freedom: The Court’s effort  to strike a balance between safeguarding fundamental rights and allowing religious freedom  was one of the case’s key features. The Court adopted a nuanced stance, despite the All India  Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) arguing that triple talaq was a religious practice  protected by Article 25. According to the majority view, religious freedom is important, but it  cannot supersede a person’s fundamental rights, especially when those rights are being violated  by behaviors that are not central to the religion. Thus, the ruling upheld the constitutional  requirement that private legislation and religious beliefs be examined. 

Judicial Review of Personal legislation: The case strengthened the judiciary’s authority to  examine and possibly overturn personal legislation that infringe on fundamental rights. The  Court established a precedent by ruling that triple talaq was unconstitutional, indicating that  private laws are subject to judicial review. This decision made it possible to challenge further 

discriminatory personal law practices in the future, not just in Islam but in other religions as  well. It confirmed that even in the face of firmly ingrained religious customs, the judiciary has  an obligation to uphold the rights of individuals. 

Legislative Response: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019,  which the Indian Parliament approved in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, outlawed  the practice of quick triple talaq. In addition to providing a statutory framework to shield  Muslim women from this practice, this legislative response served to further uphold the Court’s  ruling. By making triple talaq illegal, the Act demonstrated the government’s commitment to  protecting Muslim women’s rights and making sure the Court’s ruling was implemented long term. 

Future Cases Precedent: The Shayara Bano case established a noteworthy judicial precedent  for handling matters pertaining to Indian personal laws and religious customs. It proved that  when religious practices violate basic rights, the courts have the authority to become involved.  Future cases involving other religious traditions that are contested on comparable grounds may  be influenced by this precedent, which could result in additional personal law reforms to bring  them into compliance with the values of justice, equality, and dignity. 

Consequences for Society and Religion: The ruling has wider social and religious  ramifications. It spurred a national conversation on the place of religion in secular democracies  and the bounds of official interference in religious matters. The decision was criticized by some  for supposedly violating religious freedom, even though it was widely hailed as a win for  women’s rights. In a multicultural nation such as India, the case brought to light the persistent  conflict between upholding religious traditions and promoting social changes. 

CONCLUSION: 

A significant turning point in the development of Indian jurisprudence, notably with regard to  gender equity and the defense of fundamental rights, was reached in the Shayara Bano v. Union  of India case. The Supreme Court ruled that individual rights, particularly those of oppressed  groups like women, cannot be sacrificed in the name of religious customs when it invalidated  the practice of instant triple talaq. The ruling upheld the notion that personal laws must pass 

constitutional muster in order to guarantee that they uphold the values of justice, equality, and  dignity. 

The case also brought to light the fine line that the Court carefully considered striking between  preserving constitutional principles and defending religious freedom. The significance of the  ruling was further reinforced by the enactment of legislation that made triple talaq illegal,  guaranteeing Muslim women’s legal protection. 

All things considered, the Shayara Bano case represents a critical turning point in India’s  continued progress toward gender equality. Shayara Bano and numerous other women received  justice from it, and it also established a solid precedent for future challenges to discriminatory  practices in personal laws of all faiths. The case emphasizes how important it is for the courts  to protect people’s rights and advance social justice in a multicultural and pluralistic society. 

1. Supreme Court of India Judgment: 

Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others 

Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016. Available at: Supreme Court of India 2. Books and Articles: 

• “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: An Analytical Study”  by N. R. Madhava Menon, published in the Indian Law Review. 
• “Gender Justice and the Constitution: A Study of Shayara Bano v. Union of India” by  Faizan Mustafa, published in the Journal of Indian Law and Society. 
• “Personal Law and Judicial Intervention: The Triple Talaq Verdict” by Flavia Agnes,  published in Economic and Political Weekly. 

Reports and Legal Commentary: 

Law Commission of India Report on Reform of Personal Laws. 

• “Triple Talaq and the Indian Constitution: A Legal Perspective” by the Centre for Policy  Research, New Delhi. 
• “The Shayara Bano Judgment: A Victory for Women’s Rights?” by the Observer  Research Foundation (ORF). 

Online Legal Platforms: 

aLiveLaw: Analysis and updates on the Shayara Bano case. 

• Bar & Bench: Comprehensive coverage and expert opinions on the judgment. • Indian Kanoon: Case summary and full text of the judgment.