SHAYARA BANO V. UNION OF INDIA (2017)

By Tejaswini Suryawanshi

October 6, 2025

0

3

Forum: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)
Date of Judgment: 22nd August 2017

Judges Bench (5):

Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Justice K.M. Joseph

Laws Applied: Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937

Parties of the Case:

Petitioner: Shayara Bano
- Petitioner’s Lawyer: Amit Chandha, Salman Khurshid
Respondent: Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Minority Affairs, National Commission for Women, AIMPLB, Ahmad (Bano’s Husband)
- Respondent’s Advocate: Mukul Rohatgi, Manoj Goel, Kapil Sibal

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The case Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) is a landmark judgment in India concerning the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). The Supreme Court ruled that this form of divorce is unconstitutional, establishing a crucial precedent for women’s rights and gender justice within personal laws.

What is Triple Talaq?

Triple Talaq means a practice where, by uttering the word Talaq three times, a Muslim man can get divorce. It is unilateral, does not require the wife’s consent, and has no reconciliation period.

In India, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), and it was later criminalized under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

2. Background of the Case

Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband through talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) in 2016. She challenged the practice in the Supreme Court of India, arguing that it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

The case questioned whether instant triple talaq was protected as an essential religious practice and whether personal laws could override constitutional rights.

3. Facts of the Case

Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman from Uttarakhand, was married for 15 years to Rizwan Ahmad.
In 2016, her husband divorced her unilaterally through talaq-e-biddat, also known as instant triple talaq.
This form of divorce allowed a Muslim husband to end a marriage instantly by pronouncing the word “talaq” three times in one sitting, without any possibility of reconciliation or judicial oversight.

Bano challenged the divorce before the Supreme Court of India, arguing that talaq-e-biddat was unconstitutional and violated her fundamental rights. She contended that the practice was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust, leaving women vulnerable to sudden abandonment without financial or emotional security.

Her petition questioned the validity of three practices under Muslim personal law:

Talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq)
Nikah halala (a woman must marry and consummate another marriage before returning to her former husband)
Polygamy

Although the Supreme Court focused mainly on instant triple talaq, the case raised wider concerns about gender justice and the compatibility of personal laws with constitutional guarantees.

The Union of India, women’s rights groups, and other petitioners supported Bano’s plea, while the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) defended the practice, claiming it was part of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution.

4. Issues Raised

The case presented several constitutional and legal questions before the Court:

Whether talaq-e-biddat is an essential religious practice under Islam and thus protected under Article 25 (freedom of religion).
Whether instant triple talaq is subject to judicial review under the Constitution despite being part of personal law.
Whether the practice of instant triple talaq violates fundamental rights under:
- Article 14: Right to Equality
- Article 15: Non-discrimination
- Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Whether personal laws, being based on religion, are immune from constitutional scrutiny under Part III of the Constitution.

5. Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments (Shayara Bano and supporters)

Talaq-e-biddat is arbitrary and discriminatory, as it allows men to divorce their wives instantly without any valid reason, depriving women of equality and dignity.
The practice violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 by treating women unequally and denying them the right to live with dignity.
The Qur’an prescribes a more elaborate process of reconciliation, counseling, and waiting periods before divorce, making instant triple talaq un-Islamic.
Since it is not an essential religious practice, it cannot be protected under Article 25.
Personal laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny, as no practice can override fundamental rights.

Respondents’ Arguments (AIMPLB and opponents of the petition)

Muslim personal law is derived from religious texts and is protected under Article 25, making it beyond the reach of judicial review.
Instant triple talaq has been practiced for centuries and should not be interfered with by courts.
Reform, if needed, should be carried out by the legislature, not the judiciary, to respect the separation of powers.
Any interference in religious practices would amount to violating the principle of secularism.

Union of India’s Stand

The Government supported Shayara Bano’s position, arguing that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional.
It stated that personal laws are subject to fundamental rights, and practices that are arbitrary and discriminatory must be struck down.

6. Judgment

On 22 August 2017, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict.

Verdict: By a 3:2 majority, the Court declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional.

Majority Opinion (Nariman, Lalit, Kurian Joseph JJ)

Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice U.U. Lalit held that instant triple talaq is “manifestly arbitrary”, and therefore violates Article 14.
Justice Kurian Joseph concurred, ruling that instant triple talaq is not an essential religious practice and is contrary to the Qur’an’s teachings.
The practice was therefore struck down as unconstitutional.

Minority Opinion (CJI Khehar, Justice Nazeer)

The minority agreed that the practice is undesirable, but held that it is part of Muslim personal law and thus protected under Article 25.
They stated that reforms should be left to the legislature, not the judiciary.
However, they suggested that Parliament should enact legislation to ban the practice.

7. Ratio Decidendi

Talaq-e-biddat is arbitrary and violates the right to equality under Article 14.
The practice is not an essential religious practice under Islam, hence it cannot be protected by Article 25.
Personal laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny and must conform to fundamental rights.

Thus, the central principle was that religious freedom cannot override women’s fundamental rights to equality and dignity.

8. Legal Principles Established

Supremacy of the Constitution: Personal laws, though based on religion, are not immune from constitutional review.
Doctrine of Arbitrariness: A law or practice that is arbitrary can be struck down as violating Article 14.
Essential Religious Practices Test: Only practices fundamental to religion are protected under Article 25. Instant triple talaq does not qualify.
Gender Justice: The Court recognized that discriminatory practices against women cannot be shielded under the guise of religion.
Judicial Review of Personal Laws: The decision reaffirmed that personal laws can be tested against the Constitution.

9. Relevance and Impact

Women’s Rights and Gender Justice: The decision safeguarded Muslim women from an arbitrary and unilateral divorce system, enhancing their security and dignity.
Constitutional Supremacy: The Court emphasized that all laws, including personal laws, must conform to the Constitution.
Legislative Action: Following the judgment, Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, criminalizing instant triple talaq.
Judicial Activism: The case highlighted the role of the judiciary in protecting vulnerable groups when the legislature delays reforms.
Social Reform: The decision reinforced the principle that social practices must evolve to align with constitutional morality and human rights.
Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling laid the groundwork for future challenges to discriminatory practices in personal laws, balancing religious freedom with gender equality.

10. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) is a landmark in the struggle for gender justice in India. By striking down talaq-e-biddat, the Court recognized that practices which are arbitrary, discriminatory, and harmful to women cannot be justified in the name of religion.

“Triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

The judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over personal laws, established the doctrine of arbitrariness as a ground to strike down laws, and paved the way for legislative reforms. It stands as a progressive milestone that not only safeguarded Muslim women’s rights but also strengthened the broader principles of equality, dignity, and secularism in India.

11. References

Supreme Court of India. (2017). Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1.
Nariman, R.F., Joseph, K., Lalit, U.U., Khehar, J.S., & Nazeer, A. (2017). Opinions delivered in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench.
Bhatia, G. (2017). The Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgment: An Analysis. Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog. Retrieved from indconlawphil.wordpress.com
The Indian Express. (2017, August 23). Triple Talaq Verdict: What the Supreme Court Said. Retrieved from indianexpress.com
The Hindu. (2017, August 23). Supreme Court Declares Instant Triple Talaq Unconstitutional. Retrieved from thehindu.com
Ahmed, F. (2019). Triple Talaq and Gender Justice in India: A Constitutional Perspective. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 10(2), 45–62.
Government of India. (2019). The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Ministry of Law and Justice.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India