Holding

Triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, to the extent it recognizes and enforces triple talaq, is void under Article 13(1).

Summary

The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, set aside the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' (triple talaq) as unconstitutional. The case arose from a petition by Shayara Bano, who was divorced by her husband through triple talaq. The majority held that triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it allows a Muslim husband to break the marital tie capriciously and without any attempt at reconciliation. The Court further held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it recognizes and enforces triple talaq, is void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The majority also found that triple talaq is not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25. The minority opinion, authored by the Chief Justice, held that triple talaq is a matter of personal law and faith, protected under Article 25, and that any reform should be left to the legislature. The Court directed the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation on the matter, and in the interim, injuncted Muslim husbands from pronouncing triple talaq for six months.

Issues considered

Whether the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' (triple talaq) is valid under Muslim personal law?
Whether triple talaq is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?
Whether the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it recognizes triple talaq, is violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21?
Whether the 1937 Act is a 'law in force' under Article 13(1) and can be struck down for inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution?
Whether the practice of triple talaq is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14?
Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to issue directions pending legislation?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 13(1), s. 13(3)(b), s. 14, s. 15, s. 21, s. 25, s. 44
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939s. 2
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937s. 2

Subjects

Muslim lawtriple talaqtalaq-e-biddatconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 25personal lawfundamental rightsgender equalitymanifest arbitrarinessShariatMuslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937divorcereligious freedomessential religious practice

Judgment

(2017] 9 S.C.R. 797

SHAYARA BANO A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of2016)
With B

Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2 of2015
AUGUST 22, 2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, KURIAN JOSEPH,
R. F. NARIMAN, UDAY .UMESH LALIT c
AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ,j
MAJORITY OPINION
Muslim Law: Talaq-e-biddat - The practice of Talaq-e-biddat
is set aside. (Per Court)
D
·Muslim Law: Talaq-e-biddat - Triple Tcllaq by a Muslim
husband which severs the marital bond - Constitutionali~)I of- Held:
In "Shamim Ara case, it was held that the correct law of Tc1laq as
ordained by the Holy Qurnn is that, the Talaq must be for a
reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation·
between the husband and the wife by two arbiters - one .fi·om the E
wife's fC1mily and the other from the husband's; if the attempts fail,
Talaq may be effected" - Given the fact that Triple Talaq is
instantaneous and irrevocable, it is obvious !hut any at/empt al
reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from
their fc1milies, which is essential to save the maritC1! lie, cannot ever p
take place - 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 if
- This form of Talaq must, there.fore, be held to be violative of the
fundamental right contained under Art.14 of the Constitution of
India - Therefore, the 193 7 Act, insofar c1s it seeks to recognize G
and en.force Triple Tafaq, is within the meaning of the expression
"laws in.force" in Art.13(1) and must be struck down as being void
to the extent that it recogriizes and enf.orces Triple Ta/aq - Muslim
Personal Laws (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 - s.2 - Constitution
of India - Art.13(1). (Per Nariman, J.) H
' 797
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Muslim Law: Sunnis - Various sub-sects of Sunnis -
Discussed. (Per Nariman, J,)
Muslim Law: Various forms of divorce recognised in Islamic
law - Discussed. (Per Nariman, J,)
B Muslim Law: Triple Talaq - Legal sanctity and constitutional
protection - Triple Talaq is n,ot an integral part of the religious
practice - Merely because a practice has continued far 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
c practices with respect to subjects enumerated in s.2 which include
talaq - Therefore, in any case, after the introduction of the 1937
Act, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible ., -
Therefore, there cannot be any Constitutional protection to such a
practice - Constitution of India - Art.25 - Muslim Personal Laws
(Shariat) Application Act, 1937 - s.2. (Per Kurian, J,)
D
Muslim Law: Whether what is wrong in Quran can be legally
right - Held: What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be
good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in
law as well. (Per Kurian, J,)
E Constitution of India: Art.14 - When something is done by
the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate
determining principle or which is excessive and disproportionate,
such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary - Therefore,
arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to
negate legislation as well under Art.14 -Applying the test of manifest
F arbitrariness, it is clear that Triple Talaq is a form ofTalaq which is
itself considered to be something innovative, namely, that it is not in
the Sunna, being an irregular or heretical form of Talaq - Muslim
law. (Per Nariman, J.)
Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: s.2 -
G Whether the 1937 Act can be said to recognise and enforce Triple
Talaq as a rule of law to be followed by the courts in India - Held:
The 1937 Act is a pre-constitutional legislative measure which would
fall directly within Art.13(1) of the Constitution of India - True,
the Objects and Reasons of a statute throw light on the background
H in which the statute was enacted, but it is difficult to read the non-
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF IN.PIA AND OTHERS · 799

obstante clause of s.2 as governing the enacting part of the A
section - It is, therefore, clear that all forms of Talaq recognized
and e11forced by Muslim personal law are recognized and enforced
by the 1937 Act - This would necessarily include Triple Talaq when
.. it comes to the Mus/impersonal law applicable to Sunnis in India -
s.2 recognizes or enforces Triple Talaq because the Section makes B
Triple Talaq "the rule of decision in cases where the parties are
Muslims"-. Thus, the 1937 Act is a law made by the legislature
before the Constitution came into force, it would fall squarely within
the expression "laws in force" in Art.13(3)(b) and would be hit by
Art.13(1) if found to be inconsistent with the provisions of Part Ill
of the Constitution, to the extent of such inconsistency - Constitution C
of India -Arts.13(1), 13(3)(b). (Per Nariman, J.)
Muslim Personal Laws (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: s.2 -
Law applicable to Muslim shall be only their personal law namely
Shariat~ It is not a legislation regulating Talaq - The 1937 Act
simply makes Shariat applicable as the rule of decision in the matters D
enumerated in s.2 - Therefore, while Talaq is governed by Shariat,
the specific grounds and procedure for Talaq have not been codified
in the 1937 Act. (Per Kurian, J.)
~

Words and Phrases: Expression 'Shariat' - Meaning of (Per
::l Nariman, J.) E
Words and Phrases: Shariat - Meaning of (Per Kurian, J,)
MINORITY OPINION
Muslim Law: Talaq-e-biddat - Does the judgment of the Privy
Council in the Rashid Ahmad case, upholding Ta/aq-e-biddat, require
F
a relook - It was submitted, that after having acquired statuto1y
status, the questions and subjects (including 'talaq-e-biddat'), would
have to be in conformity (-and not in conflict), with the provisions
of Part Ill - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution - All these are
important legal questions, requiring examination - The matter would
certainly require a fresh look, because various High Courts, having G
examined the practice of divorce amongst Muslims, by way of' 'talaq-
e-biddat', have arrived at the conclusion, that the judgment in the
Rashid Ahmad case was rendered on an incorrect understanding, of
the Mu.i:Jim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. (Per Khehar, CJ/)
H

I
t
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Muslim law: Talaq-e-biddat - All the parties were unanimous,
that despite the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' being considered sin-
ful, it was accepted amongst Sunni Muslims belonging to the Hana.fl
school, as V(l/id in law, and has been in practice t1mongst them -
Talaq-e-biddat' is integral to the religious denomination of Sunnis
B belonging to the Hanafi school - The same is a part of their faith.
having been followed for more than 1400 years, and as such, has
to be accepted as being constituent of their 'personal law'. (Per
Klrehar, CJ/)
Muslim law: Talaq-e-biddat - Constitutionality under the
C Muslim 'personal law' • Shariat - T11e practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'
being a constituent of 'personal law' has a stature equal to other
fundamental rights, conferred in Part 111 of the Constitution - The
practice cannot, therefore, be set aside, on the ground of being
violative of the concept of the constitutional morality, through judi-
cial intervention. (Per Khelrar, CJI)
D Muslim law: Talaq-e-biddat - Need for legislation - It is not
within the realm ofjudicial discretion, to set aside a ma/fer of.fi1ith
and religion - The position can only be salvaged b)' way of
legislation - This is a case which presents a situation where the
Court should exercise its discretion to issue appropriate directions
E under Article 142 of the Constitution - The U11ion of India is directed
to consider appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to
'talaq-e-biddat' - Till such time as legislation in the matter is
considered, Muslim husbands, are injuncted fi·om pronouncing
'talaq-e-biddat' as a means for severing their matrimonial
relationship. (Per Khehar, CJJ)
F
Muslim Personal Law (.%ariat) Application Act, 1937: it is
incorrect statement that the questions/subjects covered by the Mus-
lim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, ceased to be /Jer-
sonal law', and got transformed into 'statutory law'. (Per Khe/lar,
CJI)
G
Constitution of India: Art.25 and Arts. 14, 15 and 21 - 'Talaq-
e-biddat ', does not violate the parameters expressed in Art.25 -
The practice is not contrary to public order, morality and health -
The practice also does not violate Arts.14, 15 and 21 of the Consti-
tution, which are limited to State actions alone - Muslim law. (Per
H Khehar, CJ/)
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 801

Constitution of India: Arts.25 and 44 riw Seventh Schedule, A
List III, Entry 5 - Reforms to 'personal law' in India, with reference
to sociatly unacceptablepractices in different religions, have come
about only by way of legislative intervention - Such legislative in-
tervention is permissible under Arts25(2) and 44, read with Entry
5 of the Concurrent List, contained in the Seventh Schedule of the B
Constitution - The said procedure alone need to be followed with
reference to the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat ', if the same is to be set
. I
aside. (Per Khehar, C.11) ·
International Conventions and Declarations: Binding effect
for deciding validity of talaq-e-biddat - Held: Not binding since
the practice of 'ta/aq-e-biddat ', is a component of 'personal law', C
and has the protection of Art.25 of the Constitution. (Per Khehar,
C.Tl)
Disposing of the matters, Held:·
PER COURT: By a majority of 3 : 2, the practice of 'talaq-e- D
biddat' - triple talaq is set aside. [Para 1) [i158-B]

PER NARIMAN, J. (FOR HIMSELF AND FOR LALIT, J.):
1.1 The Muslims in India are divided into two main sects,
namely Sunnis .and Shias, and this case pertains only to Sunnis as E
Shias do not recognise Triple Talaq. Fourt major sub-sects are
broadly recognised schools of Sunni law. They are the Hanafi
school, Maliki school, Shafi' i school and Hanbali school. The
overwhelming majority of Sunnis in India follow the Hanafi school
of law. The Hanafi school has supported the practice of Triple
Talaq amongst the Sunni Muslims in India for many centuries. F
[Paras 4, 6, 7) [1084-B-C; 1085-F-G; 1086-D-E]
*Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. [20021 3 Suppl. SCR 19 :
(2002) 7 SCC 518; Commissioner of Police v. Acharya
Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta [2004] 2 SCR 1019 :
(2004) 12 sec 770 - relied on. G
Prakash v. Phu!avati (2016) 2 SCC 36; State of
Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Born 84 -
referred to

H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Principles of Mahomedan Law (16th Ed.) and (20th Ed.)
by Mulla; "Outlines of Muhammadan Law" (5th Ed.) by
A.A.A. Fyzee - referred to. . (·
I
1.2 It can be seen that the 1937 Act is a pre-constitutional
legislative measure which would fall directly within Article 13(1)
B of the Constitution of India. True, the Objects and Reasons of a
statute throw light on the background in which the statute was
enacted, but it is difficult to read the non-obstante clause of Section
2 as governing the enacting part of the Section. It is, therefore,
clear that all forms of Talaq recognized and enforced by Muslim
C personal law are recognized and enforced by the 1937 Act. This
would necessarily include Triple Talaq when it comes to the
Muslim personal law applicable to Sunnis in India. Therefore, it
is very difficult to accept the argument that Section 2 does not
recognize or enforce Triple Talaq. It clearly and obviously does
both, because the Section makes Triple Talaq "the rule of decision
D in cases where the parties are Muslims". Thus, the 1937 Act is
a law made by the legislature before the Constitution came into
force, it would fall squarely withi"n the expression "laws in force"
in Article 13(3)(b) and would be hit by Article 13(1) if found to be
inconsistent with the provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution,
to the extent of such inconsistency. [Paras 14, 16, 18, 19) (1095-
E B, G-H; 1097-C-EJ
Sarabai v. Rabiabai (1906) ILR 30; Commissione1;
Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954)
SCR 1005; Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner,
F U.P. [1963) Supp. 1 SCR 885; Obergefell v. Hodges,
135 S. Ct. 2584 at 2605, decided on June 26, 2015 by
U.S. Supreme Court - referred to
2.1 In **Commissioner of Police~v. Acharya, it was held
"Test to determine whether a part of practice is essential to a
G religion is to find out whether the nature of the religion will be
changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that
part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the
character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be
treated as an essential or integral part." Applying this test, it is
H clear that Triple Talaq is only a form ofTalaq which is permissible
SHAYARA -BANO v. UNION-OF INDIA AND OTHERS 803

in law, but at the same time, stated to be sinful by the very Hanafi A
school which tolerates it and that the fundamental nature of the
Islamic religion, as seen through an Indian Sunni Muslim's eyes,
will not change without this practice. As stated by Hidayatullah, J.
in his introduction to Mulla, Islam divides all actions into five
kinds which figure differently in the sight of God and in respect B
of whiclt His Commands are different. This plays an important
part in the lives of Muslims. (i) First degree: Fard. Whatever is
commanded in the Koran, Hadis or ijmaa must be obeyed. Waiib.
Perhaps a little less compulsory than Fard but only slightly less
so. (ii) Second degree: Masnun, Mandub and Mustahab: These
are recommended actions. (iii) Third degree: Jaiz or Mubah: C
These are permissible actions as to which religion is indifferent.
(iv) Fourth degree: Makruh: That which is reprobated as-
unworthy. (v) Fifth degree: Haram: That which is forbidden."
[Paras 24, 25] [1100-E, 1101-B~C, E~H; 1002-A-C]
*Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda D
Avadhuta (2004] 2 SCR 1019 : (2004) 12 SCC 770 -
relied on.
Sant Ram & Ors. v. Labh Singh & Ors., [1964] 7 SCR
756 - referred to -- ·
2.2 Obviously, Triple Talaq does not fall within the first E
degree, since even assuming that it forms part of the Koran, Hadis
or Ijmaa, it is not something "commanded". Equally Talaq itself
is not a recommended action and, therefore, Triple Talaq will not
fall within the second degree. Triple Talaq at best falls within the
third degree, but probably falls more squarely within the fourth
degree. It will be remembered that under the third degree, Triple F
Talaq is a permissible. action as to which religion -is indifferent.
Within the fourth degree, it is reprobated as unworthy. It is seen
that though permissible in Hanafi jurisprudence, yet, that very
jurisprudence castigates Triple Talaq as being sinful. It is,
therefore, clear that Triple Talaq forms no part of Article 25(1). G
This being the case, the submission on behalf of the Muslim
Personal Board that the ball must be bounced back to the
legislature does not at all arise in that Article 25(2)(b) would only
apply if a particular religious practice is first covered under Article
25(1) of the Constitution, [Para 25] [1102-D-F]
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Javed v. State of Haryana [20031 1 Suppl. SCR 947 :
(2003) 8 sec 369 - relied on
Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India ·
[19971 2 SCR 389 : (1997) 3 SCC 573 - Not good law
3.1 It is at this point that it is necessary to sec whether a
B fundamental right has been violated by the 1937 Act insofar as it
seeks to enforce Triple Talaq as a rule of hiw in the Courts in
India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality
of status and opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the
Constitution. The Article naturally divides itself into two parts-
C (1) equality before the law, and (2) the equal protection of the
law. [Para 31, 32) (1105-A-BJ
Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277; Mohd.
Arif v. Supreme Court of India [20141 11 SCR 1009 :
(2014) 9 SCC 737; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
D & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 494; A. K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras (1950) SCR 88; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v.
Union of India [1970] 3 SCR 530 : (1970) 1 SCC 248;
State of Punjab v. Khan Chand [19741 2 SCR 768 :
(1974) 1 SCC 549; Om Kumar v. Union of India [20001
4 Suppl. SCR 693 : (2001) 2 SCC 386 - referred to.
E
Tej Bahadur Sapru Memorial Lecture entitled "Democracy
and Judicial Review" - referred to.
3.2. The arbitrariness doctrine contained in Article 14 would
apply to negate legislation, subordinate legislation and executive
F action. Arbitrariness in legislation is very much a facet of
unreasonableness in Article 19(2) to (6). There is no reason
why arbitrariness cannot. be used in the said sense to strike down
legislation under Article 14 as well. The thread of reasonableness
runs through the entire fundamental rights Chapter. What is
manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary
G to the rule of law, would violate Article 14. Further, there is an
apparent contradiction in the three Judges' Bench decision in
**McDowell when it is said that a constitutional challenge can
succeed on the ground that a law is "disproportionate, excessive
or unreasonable", yet such challenge would fail on the very
H ground of the law being "unreasonable, unnecessary or
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 805

unwarranted". The arbitrariness doctrine when applied to A
legislation obviously would not involve the latter challenge but
would only involve a law being disproportionate, ex~essive or
otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All these grounds,
therefore, do not seek to differentiate between State action in its
various forms, all of which are inter(jicted if they fall foul of the B
fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part III
of the Constitution. Subordinate legislation can be struck down
on the ground that it is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. [Para 41, 44, 45, 54] [1112-E, 1126-C-D;
1129-C-E, 1136-B-C]
**State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [1996) 3 SCR 721: c
(1996) 3 sec 709 - per incuriam.
State of UP. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [1961] 1 SCR 14;
Lachhman Das v. State of Punjab [1963) 2 SCR 353;
S.G Jaisinghani v. Union of India [1967) 2 SCR 703;
State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram [1968) 1 SCR 349; D
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain judgment [1976] SCR 347
: 1975 Supp SCC 1; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kera/a (1973) Suppl. SCR l : (1973) 4 SCC 225;
E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [1974] 2 SCR 348 : (1974)
4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 E
SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248; A.L. Katra v. Project
and Equipment Corpn. [1984] 3 SCR 646 : (1984) 3
SCC 316; Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar [1992) 3
Suppl. SCR 438 : (1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 268; Ajay Hasia
v. Khalid M11jib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722; K.R.
Lak5hmanan (Dr.) v. State of T.N. [1996) .1 SCR 395 : F
(1996) 2 SCC 226 - relied OD;
Malpe Vishwanath Achmya v. State of Maharashtra·.
[1997) 6 Suppl. SCR 717 : (1998) 2 SCC 1; Mardia
Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc.
[2004] 3 SCR 982 : (2004) 4 SCC 311; State of Tamil G
Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder [2011) 11 SCR 1094 : (2011)
8 SCC 737; A.P. Dairy Development Co1pn. Federation
v. B. Narasimha Reddy [2011) 14 SCR 1 : (2011) 9
SCC 286; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
[2008) 4 SCR 1 i (2008) 6 SCC 1; K.T. Plantation (P) · H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011( 13 SCR 636 : (2011)
9 SCC 1; Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special
Reference No.I of 2012, (2012( 9 SCR 311 : (2012)
10 SCC 1; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Direct01; Central
Bureau of investigation J2014J 6 SCR 873 : (2014) 8
SCC 682; D1: Subramanian Swamy v. Direct01; Central
B
Bureau of Investigation (2005) 2 SCC 317 - referred
to.
3.3 Manifest arbitrariness, must be something done by the
legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate
determining principle. Also, when something is done which is
C excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be
manifestly arbitrary. Therefore, arbitrariness in the sense of
manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation as well
under Article 14. Appl)•ing the test of manifest arbitrariness to
the case at hand, it is clear that Triple Talaq is a form of Talaq
D which is itself considered to be something innovative, namely,
that it is not in the Sunna, being an irregular or heretical form of
Talaq. [Para 55-561 f1138-B-DI
· Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India f1985( 2
SCR 287 : (1985) 1 SCC 641 - relied on.
E Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India f2016] 9 SCR 1 : (2016)
7 SCC 703; State ofBihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1996(
9 Suppl. SCR 479 : (1997) 2 SCC 453; State of M.P. v.
Rakesh Kohli (2012] 6 SCR 661 : (2012) 6 SCC 312;
F Rajbala v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2015] 12 SCR
1106 : (2016) 2 SCC 445; Binoy Viswam v. Union of
India, (2017) 7 SCC 59 - referred to.
3 .4 Indeed, in Sltamim Ara case, this Court after referring
to a number of authorities including certain recent High Court
G judgments held "The correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy
Quran is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded
by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife
by two arbiters - one from the wife's family and the other from
the husband's; if the attempts fail, talaq may be effected". Given
the fact that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is obvious
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS · 807

that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife A
by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the
marital tie; cannot e~er take place. Also, as. understood· by the
Privy Council in Rashid Ahmad, such Triple Talliq is valid even if •
it is not for any reasonable cause, which view of the law rio longer
ho~ds good after Shamim Ara. This being the case, it is clear th.at B
this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the serise 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
of India. Therefore, the 1937. Act, insofar as it s·eeks:to recognize C ·
and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression , ·
"laws in force" in Article 13(1) :ind must be struck down as being. ...
void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple :Talaq.
[Paras 56, 57) (1138-D-E; 1139-B-D) '.
'.
Rashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatun (1931~ 32) S9 IA 21: · · D
AIR 1932 PC 25 - Not good law. . .
PER KURIAN, J.:
I. After the 1937 Act, in respect of the enumerated subjects
under Section 2 regarding "marriage, dissolution of marriage,
including talaq", the law that is applicable to Muslims shall be E
only their personal law namely Shariat. Nothing more, nothing
less. It is not a legislation regulating talaq. In contradistinction,
The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provides for the
grounds for dissolution of marriage. So is the case with the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The 1937 Act simply makes Shariat applicable F
as the rule of decision in the matters enumerated in section 2,
Therefore, while talaq is governed by Shariat, the specific grounds
and procedure for talaq have not been codified in the 1937 Act.
[Paras 4) (1140-D-E; 1141-A-B)
2.1 There are four sources for Islamic law- (i) Quran (ii) G
Hadith (iii) Ijma (iv) Qiyas. The #author in his book Outlines of·
Muhammadan Law has rightly said that the Holy Quran is the
"first source of law". According to the author, pre-eminence is to
be given to the Quran. That means, sources other than the Holy •
Quran are only to supplement what is given .in it and to supply
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A what is not provided for. In other words, there cannot be any
Hadith, Ijma or Qiyas against what is expressly stated in the
Quran. Islam cannot be anti-Quran. [Para 71 [1142-B-CI
Asaf A.A. Fyzee in his book Outlines of Muhammadan
Law, 5th Edition, 2008 - referred to
B 2.2 There is reference to talaq in three Suras - in Sura II
while dealing with social life of the community, in Sura IV while
dealing with decencies of family life and in Sura LXV while dealing
explicitly with talaq. The instructive verses in Sura LXV of the
Quran, dealing with talaq are clear and unambiguous as far as
c talaq is concerned. The Holy Quran has attributed sanctity and
permanence to matrimony. However, in extremely unavoidable
situations, talaq is permissible. But an attempt for reconciliation
and if it succeeds, then revocation are the Quranic essential steps
before talaq attains finality. In triple talaq, this door is closed,
hence triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran
D and consequently, it violates Shariat. (Paras 8, 10111142-F-; 1150-
A-B]
Fuzlunbi v. K Khader Vali and Another (19801 3 SCR
1127 : (1980) 4 sec 125 - approved

E Masroor Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another ILR
(2007) II Delhi 1329; Sarabai v. Rabiabai lLR 30
Born 537; Furzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee ILR (1878)
4 Cal 588; Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) 1
Gau LR 358; Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar
(1981) 1 Gau LR 375; A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma
F AIR 1971 Ker 261; Mohd Haneefa 1~ Pathummal Beevi
1972 KLT 512; Andhra Pradesh, in Zamntd Begum v.
K. Md. Haneef and another (2003) 3 ALU 220; A. S.
Parveen Akthar v. The Union of India 2003-1-L.W. 370
- referred to
G 3. The view of the 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 is not
endorsed. [Para 23) (1156-G-HJ
4. To freely profess, practice and propagate religion of one's
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 809

choice is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Indian A
Constitution. That is subject only to the following-(1) public order,
(2) health, (3) morality and (4) other provisions of Part III dealing
with Fundamental Rights. Under Article 25(2) of the Constitution
of India, the State is also granted power to make law in two
contingencies notwithstanding the freedom granted under Article B
25(1). Article 25 (2) states that "nothing in this Article shall affect
the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making
any law- (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or
the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public C
character to all .classes and sections of Hindus." Except to the
above extent, the freedom of religion under the Constitution of
India is absolute. However, triple talaq is not an integral part of
the religious practice. Merely because a practice has continued
for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly D
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. Therefore, in any case, after the
introduction of the 1937 Act, no practice against the tenets of
Quran is permissible. Hence, there cannot be any Constitutional E
protection to such a practice.[Para 24] [1157-A-C, D-E]
5. When issues of such nature come to the forefront, the
discourse often takes the form of pitting religion against other
constitutional rights. A reconciliation between the same is
possible, but the process of harmonizing different interests is p
within the powers of the legislature. Of course, this power has to
be exercised within the constitutional parameters without curbing
the religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
However, it is not for the Courts to direct for any legislation.
What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat
and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well. G
[Paras 25, 26] [1157-F-G; 1158-A]
,
Shamim Ara v. State of UP and Another [2002) 3 Suppl.
SCR19 : (2002) 7 SCC 518 - affirmed.
Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and Others [1980] H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 2 SCR 660 = (1981) 3 SCC 689; Ahmedabad Women
Action Group (AWAG) and Ors. v. Union of India [19971
2 SCR 389 = (1997) 3 SCC 573; Manzoor Ahmad Khan
v. Saja & Ors. 2010 (4) JKJ 380; Ummer Farooque v.
Naseema 2005 (4) KLT 565; Nazeer @ Oyoor Nazeer
v. Shemeema 2017 (1) KLT 300 - referred to .
.B
PER KHEHAR, CJI (FOR HIMSELF AND FOR NAZEER, J.):
1. Does the judgment of the Privy Council in the **Rashid Ahmad
case, upholding 'talag-e-biddat', require a relook'!
The **Rashid Ahmad case was rendered by applying the
C Muslim 'personal law'. In the said judgment, 'talaq-e-biddat'
was held as valid and binding. This judgment was rendered in
1932. The opinion expressed by the Privy Council with refer-
ence to 'talaq-e-biddat', in the Rashid Ahmad case, holding that
'talaq-e-biddat' results in finally and irrevocably severing the mat-
D rimonial tie between spouses, the very moment it is pronounced,
needs to be examined afresh. More particularly, because the
validity of the same as an approved concept, of Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat', was not evaluated at that juncture (-as it indeed
could not have been, as the legislation was not available, when
the Privy Council had rendered its judgment), in the backdrop of
E the Shariat Act, and also, the provisions of the Constitution of
India. [Paras 115, 120) (999-G-H; 1000-C-D; 1103-G-H; 1104-AI
**Rashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatun AIR 1932 PC 25 -
needs fresh examination.
Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) 1 Gau.L.R.
F
358; Must. Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar
(1981) 1 Gau. L.R. 375; Masroor Ahmed v. State (NCT
of Delhi) 2008 (103) DRJ 137; Nazeer v. Shemeemu
2017 (1) KLT 300; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala [1973) Suppl. SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225;
..G Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (198111SCR206:
(1980) 3 SCC 625; Manoj Narula v. Union o.f' lndia
i'
(20141 9 SCR 965 : (2014) 9 SCC 1; Javed State of
Haryana [20031 1 Suppl. SCR 947 : (2003) 8 SCC
369; Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2015) 1 SCR 1032 : (2015) 8 SCC 439; State of Bihar
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 811

v. Rai Bahadur Jjurdut Roy Moti Lal .Jute Mills 1?60 • A
AIR 378 : [1960] SCR 331; A. YusufRa~ 1 ther v.
Sowramma AIR 1971 Ker 261; Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader .
Vali (1980) 3 SCR 1127 : (1980) 4 SCC 125 - referred ·
to.
Principles ofIVlohomedan Law by Sir Dinshaw .Fardlinji B
MuHa, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur,
20th edition) - referred to.
Has 'talaq-e-biddat', which is concededly sinful, sanction of law'!
2.1 The submission that 'talaq-e-biddat', does. not have its
source o'f origin from the Quran does not need a serious c
examination, because even 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan'
which the petitioners acknowledge as - 'the most proper', and - .
'the proper' forms of divorce respectively; also do not find mention
in the Quran. Despite the absence of any reference to 'talaq-e-
. ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan' in the Quran, none of the petitioners D
has raised any challenge thereto, on this score. A challenge. t.o
'talaq-e-biddat' obviously cannot be raised on this ground. Tlie
different approved practices of talaq among Muslims, have their
origin in 'hadiths' and other sources of Muslim. jurisprudence
and therefore, merely because it is not expressly provided for or
approved by the Quran, cannot be a valid j ustitication for. setting E
aside the practice.[Para 1211 [1004-B-DJ
2.2 The prayer of petitioners was that whatever is irregular
and sinful, cannot have the sanction of law on the ground that
'talaq-e-biddat' is proclaimed as bad in theology. The petitioners
prayed that the present controversy needed· a similar F
intervention, as had ·been adopted for doirig away with similar ·
patriarchal, irregular and sinful practices amongst Hindus. The
submission was, that just as 'Sati' · Devadasi and Polygamy had
been dedared as unacceptable, the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'
should likewise be declared as unacceptable in taw. Insofar as G
the practice of 'Sati' is concerned, its practice n·ached alarming
~ . proportion between 1815-1818, it is estimated that the incidence
·of 'Sati' doubled during this period. The provincial Government
of Bengal banned 'Sati' in 1829, by way of legislation. This.was
then followed by similar laws by princely States in India. After
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A the practice was barred by law, the Indian Sati Prevention Act,
'1988 was enacted, which criminalised any type of aiding, abetting
'or glorifying the practice of 'Sa ti'. Insofar as the practice of
'•Devadasi' is concerned, soon after the end of British rule,
'independent India passed the Madras Devadasi's (Prevention of
B Dedication) Act (-also called the Tamil N ad u Devadasis
(Prevention of Dedication Act) on 09.10.1947. The enactment
made prostitution illegal. The other legislations enacted on the
same issue, included the 1934 Bombay Devadasi Protection Act,
the 1957 Bombay Protection (Extension) Act, and the Andhra
Pradesh Devadasi (Prohibition of Dedication) Act of 1988. It is
C therefore apparent, that the instant practice was done away with,
through legislation. Polygamy was permitted amongst Hindus.
In 1860, the Indian Penal Code made 'polygamy' a criminal
offem;e. The Hindu Mariage Act was passed in 1955. Section 5
thereof provides, the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage. One
of the conditions postulated therein was, that neither of the parties
0
to the matrimonial alliance should have a living spouse, at the
time of the marriage. The practices of 'Sati', 'Devadasi' and
'polygamy' were abhorrent, and could well be described as sinful.
They were clearly undesirable and surely bad in theology.
However neither of those practices came to be challenged before
E any court of law. Each of t~e practices were discontinued and
invalidated by way of legislative enactments. The instances cited
on beJtalf of the petitioners cannot therefore be of much avail,
wit.h reference to the matter in hand, wherein, the prayer is for
judicial intervention. [Para 122-1251 [1004-E-F; 1005-E-H; 1006-
F A, B-EJ
2.3 There is no dispute on two issues. Firstly, that the
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' has been in vogue since the period of
Umar, which is roughly more than 1400 years ago. Secondly, the
counsels, irrespective of who they represented, (-the petitioners
or the respondents), acknowledged in one voice, that 'talaq-e-
G 'biddat' though bad in theology, was considered as "good" in law.
All counsel representing the petitioners were also unequivocal,
that 'talaq-e-biddat' was accepted as a "valid" practice in law.
That being so, it is not possible to hold, the practice to be invalid
in law, merely at the asking of the petitioners, just because it is
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 813

considered bad in theology. !Para 1271 [1007-F-H] A
3. ls the practice of 'talag-e-biddat', approved?disapproved by
"hadiths"?
This Court in the ***Shamim Ara case did not debate the
issue of validity of 'talaq-e-biddat'. Observations recorded on
the subject cannot, therefore, be treated as ratio decidendi in the B
matter. In fact, the question of validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' has
never been debated before this Court. This is the first occasion
that the matter is being considered after rival submissions have
been advanced. l\foreover, in the said judgment the Court was
adjudicating a dispute regarding maintenance under Section 125 C
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband, .in order to
avoid the liability of maintenance pleaded that he had divorced
his wife. the liability to pay maintenance was accepted, not
because 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq was not valid in Inv, but
because the husband had not been able to establish the factum of
divorce. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission on D
the strength of the Shamim Ara case. [Para 138] (1016-D-E; 1018-.
Bl
***Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. [20021 3 Suppl. SCR
19 : (2002) 7 sec 518 - distinguished
E
4. Is the practice of 'talag-e-biddat', a matter of faith for Muslims?
If yes, whether it is a constituent of their 'personal law'?
The practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' was widespread. About 90%
of the Sunnis in India, belong to the Hanafi school, and they have
been adopting 'talaq-e-biddat' as a valid form of divorce. An F
overwhelming majority of Muslims in India, have had recourse
to the severance of their matrimonial ties, by way of 'talaq-e-
biddat' - as a matter of their religious belief - as a matter of their
faith. The practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' has to be considered integral
to the religious denomination in question - Sunnis belonging to
the Hanafi school. The practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', has had the G
sanction and approval of the religious denomination which
practiced it, and as such, there can be no doubt that the practice,
is a part of their 'personal law'. [Para 142, 144, 1451 11019-C-D,
G; 1020-B-D, E-F] ~

H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 5. Did the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
confer statutory status to the subjeds regulated by the said
le2islation'!
5.1 'Personal law' has a constitutional protection through
Ai:ticle 25 of the Constitution. The stature of 'personal law' is
B that of a fundamental right. The elevation of 'personal law' to
this stature came about when the Constitution came into force.
This was because Article 25 was included in Part III of the
Constitution. Stated differently, 'personal law' of every religious
denomination, is protected from invasion and breach, except as
provided by and under Article 25. (Para 1461 (1020-Gf
c
· 5.2 A perusal of Section 2 of 1937 Act thereof reveals, that
on the questions/subjects of intestate succession, special property
of females, including personal property inherited or obtained
under contract or gift or any other provision of 'personal law',
marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian,
D khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts,
trusts and trust properties, and wakfs, " ... the rule of decision
... ",where the parties are Muslims, shall be" ... the Muslim
Personal Law - Shariat. [Para 1491 11021-F-GI
5.3 The limited purpose of Section 2 was to negate the
E overriding effect of usages and customs over the Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat'. This determination clearly emerges
even from the debates in the Legislative Assembly before the
enactment of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,
1937. The debates reveal that customs and usages by tribals
F were being given overriding effect by courts while determining
issues between Muslims. Even usages and customs of particular
villages were given overriding effect over Muslim 'personal law'
- 'Shariat'. A perusal of Section 2 and the non obstante clause
used therein, has that effect. The Shariat Act neither lays down
nor declares the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. Not even, on
G the questions/subjects covered by the legislation. There is
substantial divergence of norms regulating Shias and Sunnis.
There was further divergence of norms, in their respective
schools. The Shariat Act did not crystalise the norms as were to
be applicable to Shias and Sunnis, or their respective schools.
H What was sought to be done through the Shariat Act was to
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 815

preserve Muslim 'personal law' -' 'Shariat', as it existed from ·A
time immemorial. The Shariat Act recognizes the Muslim
'personal law' as the 'rule of decision' in the same manneras
Article 25 recognises the supremacy and enforceability of
'personal law' of all religions. Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'
as body of law, was perpetuated by the Shariat Act, and what had B
become ambiguous (due to inundations through customs and
usages), was clarified and crystalised. In contrast, if such a plea
had been raised with reference to the Diss9lution of Muslim
Marriages Act, 1939, which legislati_vely postulated the grounds
of divorce for Muslim women, the submission would have been
acceptable. The 1939 Act would form a part of 'statutory. law', C
and not 'personallaw'. Therefore, the proposition canvassed on
behalf of the petitioners, na~ely, that the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act, 1937 conferred statutory status, on the
questions/subjects governed by the Shariat Act, cannot be
accepted; That being the position, Muslim 'personal law' ~ 'D
'Shariat' cannot be considered as a State enactment. The practices .
of Muslim 'personal law' - 'Sh~riat' c.annot be required .to satisfy
the provisions contained in Part Ill '- Fundamental Rights, of the
Con·stitution, applicable to State actio1is, in terms of Ar~icle 13 of
the Constitution. (Paras 156, 157] [1024-E-H; 1025-A-E)
E
' '

6. Does 'talaq-e-biddat', violate the parameters expressed in
Article 25 of the Constitution? . ' '

6.1 The constitutional protecti~n to tenets of 'personal ·
law' cannot be interfered with, as long as the same do not infringe
"public order, morality and health'', and/or "the provisions of Part .
Ill of the Constitution". This is the clear position expressed in · F
Article 25(1). It is not possible to accept, that the practice of
' '
'talaq-e-biddat' can be set aside and held as unsustainablein law
i for the three defined purposes expressed in Article 25(1), namely,
for reasons of it being contrary to public order, morality and health.
Viewed from any angle, it is impossible to conclude, that the G
practice impinges on 'public order'; or for that matter on 'health'.
Also it has no nexus to 'morality', as well. Therefore, the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' cannot be struck. down on the three non-
permissible/prohibited areas which Article 25 forbids even .in·
respect of 'personal law'. [Paras 163, 164] [1025-G-H; 1037~D-
G] H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9. S.C.R.

A N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devasom Board (2002) 8
SCC 106;. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P. [1997] 2 SCR 1086 :
(1997) 4 SCC 606; Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar
[19961 1 Suppl. SCR 442 : (1996) 5 SCC 125 - relied
on
B
State of Bombay v. Nara.1·u Appa Mali AIR 1952 Born
84 - referred to
6.2 The only remaining ground on which the challenge to
'talaq-e-biddat' under Article 25 could be sustainable is, if 'talaq-
C e-biddat' can be seen as violative of the provisions of Part Ill of
the Constitution. The fundamental rights enshrined in Articles
14; 15 and 21 are as against State actions. A challenge under
these provisions (Articles 14, 15 and 21) can be invoked only
against the State. Ar_ticle 14 forbids the State from acting
arbitrarily. Article 14 requires the State to ensure equality before
D the law and equal protection of the laws, within the territory of
India. Likewise, Article 15 prohibits the State from taking
discriminatory action on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth, or any of them. The mandate of Article 15
requires, the State to treat everyone equally. Even Article 21 is
E a protection from State action, inasmuch as, it prohibits the State
from depriving anyone of the rights enuring to them, as a matter
of life and liberty (-except, by procedure established by law).
Since Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' is not based on any State
Legislative action, therefore Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat',
cannot be tested on the touchstone of being a State action. Muslim
F 'personal law' - 'Shariat', is a matter of 'personal law' of Muslims,
to be traced from four sources, namely, the Quran, the 'hadith',
the 'ijma' and the 'qiyas'. None of these can be attributed to any
State action. Talaq-e-biddat' is a practice amongst Sunni Muslims
of the Hanafi school. A practice which is a component of the
G 'faith' of those belonging to that school. 'Personal law', being a
matter of religious faith, and not being State action, there is no
question of its being violative of the provisions of the Constitution
of India, more particularly, the provisions relied upon by the
petitioners, to assail the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', namely,
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. [Para 165] [1037-G-
H H; 1038-A-GJ
•
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 817

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India 11995) 1 Suppl. SCR A
250 : (1995) 3 sec 635 - referred to
7. Constitutional morality and 'talag-e-biddat':
7.1 The debates in the Constituent Assembly with reference
to Article 25, leave no room for any doubt, that the framers of the
Constitution· were firm in making 'personal law' a part of the B
fondamental rights with the liberty to the State to provide for ·
social reform. The debates of the Constituent Assembly with
reference to Article 44, are also relevant. Article 25 requires the
State to endeavour to secure a uniform 'civil code'. A member
who debated the provision during the deliberations of the c
Constituent Assembly, canvassed that groups and sections of
religious denominations be given the right to adhere to their own
personal law (-Mohamed Ismail Sahib), as it was felt, that
interference in 'personal law' would amount to interfering with
" ... the way of life and religion of the people ... ". (Paras 170, 171)
(1038-G-H; 1048-C-D, F-G] D
Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [19961 1 SCR
128 : (1996) 3 sec 545 ...: distinguished.
John Vallamattom v. Union of India [20031 1 Suppl.
SCR 638 : (2003) 6 SCC 611 - held inapplicable. E
7.2 There cari be no doubt, that the 'personal law' has been
elevated to the;stature of a fundamental right in the Constitution.
And as such, 'personal law' is enforceable as it -is. All
constitutional Courts, are the constitutionai guardians of all the
Fundamental Rights (..., included in Part III of the Constitution). F
It is, therefore; the constitutional duty of all Courts to protect,
preserve and enforce, all fundamental rights, and not the other
way around. It is judicially unthinkable.for a Court, to accept any
pra·yer to declare as unconstitutional (-or unacceptable in law),
for any reason or logic, what the Constitution declares as a
fundamental right Because, in accepting the prayer(s), this Court G
would be denying the rights expressly protected under Article
25. (Para 1721 [1049-D-EJ
8. Reforms to 'personal law' in India: Reference was made
to the Legislation in India with regard to matters strictly pertain-
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A ing to 'personal law', and particularly to the issues of marriage
and divorce, i.e., matters strictly within the confines of 'personal
law'. [Para 1751 [1050-Bf
8.1. The Divorce Act, 1869 provided for the grounds for
dissolution of marriage in Section 10 thereof. Consequent upon
B a further amendment, Section lOA was added thereto, to provide
for dissolution of marriage by consent. What is sought to be
highlighted is, that it required legislation to provide for divorce
amongst the followers of the Christian faith in India. The instant
legislation provided for grounds on which Christian husbands and
wives could obtain divorce. {Para 1761 [1052-C; 1053-Df
c
.8.2 Parsis in India, are the followers. of the Iranian prophet
Zoroaster. The Parsis, are stated to have migrated from Iran to
India, to avoid religious persecution by the Muslims. Parsis in
India were governed in the matter of marriage and divorce by
their 'personal law'. For the first time in 1865, the Parsi Marriage
D and Divorce Act was passed. The same was substituted by the
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 after substantial
amendments to the original enactment. [Para 1771 (1053-E-Fl
8.3 The Special Marriage Act, 1872 provided for inter-faith
marriages. The same came to be replaced by the Special Marriage
E Act, 1954. [Para 178( [1053-G)
8.4 The Foreign Marriage Act,_ 1969 followed the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. It was enacted on account of uncertainty of
law related to foreign marriages. The statement of objects and
reasons of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 expresses the holistic
F view, which led to the passing of the legislation. [Para 179,1 (1060-
B-CJ ·
8.5 Muslims are followers of Islam. Muslims consider the
Quran their holy book. For their personal relations, they follow
the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. The Muslim Personal Law .
G (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 provided, "the rule of decision"
in matters pertaining, inter alia, to marriage, dissolution of
marriage including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat would
be the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', and not, any custom or
usage to the contrary. It is therefore, that by a statutory
intervention, customs and usages in conflict with Muslim
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .819

'personal law', were done away with, in connection with 'personal A
law' matters, in relation to Muslims. The Dissolution of Muslim
Marriages Act, 1939 provided, grounds for dissolution of marriage
to Muslim women, under Section 2 of the above enactinent. [Para
1801 [i06l-H; 1062-A-CI
8.6 The law of marriage and divorce amongst Hindus,. has B .
had a chequered history. A marriage, according to Hindu law, is . ·
a holy .sacrament, and not a contract (as is the case of Muslims);
Originally fhere were eight forms of Hindu marriages, four of
which were considered regular - and the rest irregular. The .
choice of marriage, was limited only to one's own religion and
c
r.
1
•
6
- • caste. Polygamy was permitted amongst Hindus, but not
"'pU!~'llD~ry. Widow marriage was also not permitted. Legislation
in respect of Hindu marriages commenced in 1829 when S:iti was
\ abolished by law. In 1856, Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act,
fi~ · ''legalized the marriage of Hindu widows. In 1860, the India ii Penal
J Code made polygamy a criminal offence. In 1866, Native Converts·. , D · ·
Marriage Dissolution Act facilitated divorce for Hindus, who ha(f
adopted the Christian faith. In 1872, Special Marriage Act was
enacted, but it excluded Hindus. In 1869, the Indian Divorce
. ·, , .
Act was passed, but this too remained inapplicable to Hindus. In
1909, the Anand Marriage Act legalized marriages amongst Sikhs
(called - Anand). In 1923, by an amendment to the Special E
Marriage Act, inter-religious civil marriages between Hindus,
Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains were legalized. In 1937, the Arya
Marriage Validation Act legalized the inter-caste marriages, and
marriages with converts to Hinduism, among the followers of Arya
· Samaj. Jn 1949, Hindu Marriages Validity Act legalized inter- f
r.eligious marriages. The Hindu Marriage Act, was passed in
1955. Section 5 o_f the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for
the conditions of a valid Hindu marriage. A perusal of the details
pertaining to legislation in India with regard to matters pertaining
to 'personal law', and particularly to issues of marriage and
divorce for different religious communities reveals, that all issues G
governed by 'personal law', were only altered by way of'
legislation. There is not a singular instance of judicial
intervention. The unbroken practice during the pre-independence
period, and the post independence period - under the
Constitution, demonstrates a clear and unambiguous course, H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A namely, reform in the matter of marriage and divorce (which are
integral components of 'personal law') was only introduced
through legislation. Therefore any change thereof, has to be only
by legislation under Articles ,2~(2) and 44, r/w entry 5 of the
Concurrent List contained in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. [Paras 181, 182) [1062-D-H; 1065-E-HJ
B
9. Impact of international conventions and declarations on 'talaq-
e-biddat':
9.1 The Indian State is committed to gender equality. This
is the clear mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. India is
c also committed to eradicate discrimination on the ground of sex.
Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, prohibit any kind of dis-
crimination on the basis of sex. There is, therefore, no reason or
necessity while examining the issue of 'talaq-e-biddat', to fall back
upon international conventions and declarations. The Indian
Constitution itself provides for the same. The protection of 'per-
D son al laws• of religious sections, is elevated to the stature of a
fundamental right, inasmuch as Article 25 of the Constitution,
which affords such protection to 'personal law' is a part of Part
III (- Fundamental Rights), of the Constitution. It is therefore
apparent, that whilst the Constitution of India supports all con-
E ventions and declarations which c~h for gender equality, the Con-
stitution preserves 'personal law' through which religious com- '
munities and denominations have governed themselves, as an
exception.(Paras 186, 187( (1067-D-E, F-HI
9.2 International conventions and declarations arc of
F utmost importance, and have to be taken into consideration while
interpreting domestic laws. But, one important exception to the
above rule is, that international conventions as are not in conflict
with domestic law, alone can he relied upon. The dispute in hand
falls in the above exception. Insofar as 'personal law' is concerned,
the same has constitutional protection. Therefore if 'personal
G law' is in conflict with international conventions and declarations,
'personal law' will prevail. The contention advanced on behalf of
the petitioners to hold the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', on account
it being in conflict with conventions and declarations to which
India is a signatory can, therefore, not be acceded to.(Para 189)
H (1075-A-C(
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 821
,•••.••• 't

...
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.& Chopra A
. [1999) 1 SCR 117 : (1999) 1 SCC 759; Krishna
Janardhan Bhat v. Dattaraya G Hegde [20081 1 SCR
' .
605 : (2008) 4 SCC 54; State ofKerala v. Peoples
' Union.for Civil Liberties [2009[ 11 SCR142 : (2009) 8
sec 46; Safai Karamchari Ando/an v. Union df1ndia B
[2014) 4 SCR 197 : (2014) 11 SCC 224 - relied on .
, 10.1 There is seemingly an overwhelming maJority of
Muslim-women; demanding that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'
which is sinful in theology, be declared as impermissible in law.
During the course of hearing, the issue was hotly canvassed in
the media. Most of the views expressed in erudite articles on c
the subject, hugely affirmed that the practice was demeaning.
· Some even described it as being debased, abhorrent and
wretched. "Talaq-e-biddat is a matter of personal law of Sunni
Muslims b~longing to Hanafi school. It constitutes a matter of
their faith. Religion is a matter of faith, and not oflogic. It is not D
open to a court to accept an egalitarian approach, over a practice
which constitutes ait integral part of religion. The Constitution
allows the followers of every religion, to follow their beliefs and
religious traditions. The Constitution assures believers of all
faiths, that their way of life, is guaranteed, and would not be
subjected to any challenge, even though they may seem to others E
(-and even rationalists, practicing the same faith) un·acceptable,
in today's world and age. The Constitution extends this
guarantee, b·ecause faith constitutes the religious consciousness,
of the followers. It is this religious consciousness, which binds
believers into separate entities.· The Constitution endevours to F
protect and preserve, the, beliefs of each of the separate_ entities;
under Article 25. Despite the views expressed by those who
challenged the prlc}i:tice of 'talaq-e-biddat', being able to
demonstrate that the practice transcends the barriers of
constitutional morality (emerging from different provisions of the
Constitution), the petitioners' claim cannot be accepted because G
the challenge raised is in respect of an issue of 'personal law' .
which has constitutional protection. The authority to safeguard
and compel compliance, is vested under a special jurisdiction in
constitutional Courts (-underArticle 32, with the Supreme Court;
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A and under Article 226, with the High Courts). Accepting the
petitioners prayers, would be in clear transgression of the
constitutional mandate contained in Article 25. [Paras 191, 192,
193, 194, 195) [1076-E-G; 1077-A-B, C-D; 1078-A-B)
10.2 lt is not difficult to comprehend, what kind of challenges
B would be raised by rationalists, assailing practices of different
faiths on diverse grounds, based on all kinds of enlightened
sensibilities. It is not for a court to determine whether religious
practices were prudent or progressive or regressive. Religion
and 'personal law', must be perceived, as it is accepted, by the
followers of the faith. And not, how another would like it to be (-
c including self-proclaimed rationalists, of the same faith). Article
25 obliges all Constitutional Courts to protect 'personal laws'
and not to find fault therewith. Interference in matters of 'personal
law' is clearly beyond judicial examination. The judiciary must,
therefore, always exercise absolute restraint, no matter how
D compelling and attractive the opportunity to do societal good may
seem. [Para 1961 [1078-D-E, F-H; 1079-A-B]
Whether this is a tit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article
142, " ... for doing complete justice ... "?
10.3 A perusal of the consideration recorded reveals, that
E the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' has been done away with, by way
of legislation in a large number of egalitarian States, with sizeable
Muslim population and even by theocratic Islamic States. It is
not within the realm of judicial discretion, to set aside a matter of
faith and religion. There can be no doubt, that the position can
F only be salvaged by way of legislation. 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. The Union of India is directed to consider
appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to 'talaq-e-
biddat '. The contemplated legislation will also take into
G consideration advances in Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', as
have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by
theocratic Islamic States. Measures have been adopted for other
religious denominations (see at IX - Reforms to 'personal law'
in India), even in India, but not for the Muslims. Till such time
H as legislation in the matter is considered, Muslim husbands, are
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 823

injuncted ·from pronouncing 'talaq-e-biddat' as a means for A
severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant injunction,
shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six months.
If the legislative process commences before the expiry of the
period of six months, and a positive decision emerges towards
redefining 'talaq-e-biddat' (three pronouncements of 'talaq', at
. B
one and the same time) - as one, or alternatively, if it is decided
that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' be done away with altogether,
the· injunction would continue, till legislation is finally enacted.
Failing which, the in,iunction shall cease to operate. [Paras 198,
199, 200] 11079-E; 181-A-FI
'
Shabnam Hashmi v. Union ofIndia 12014] 2 SCR 1101 : c
(2014) 4 SCC 1; Charu Khurana v. Union of India
(2014] 12 SCR 259 : (2015) 1 SCC 192; C. Masilamani
Mudafiar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoii
[1996] 1 SCR 1068 : (1996) 8 SCC 525; S.R. Bommai
v. Union of India [1994] 2) SCR 644 : (1994) 3 SCC D
1; Anuj Gmg v. Hotel Association ollndia (2007) 12
SCR 99f : (2008) 3 SCC 1; Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan [1997) 3 Suppl. SCR 404 : (1997) 6 SCC
241; Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank ol India 119991
1 SCR 669 : (1999) 2 SCC 228; Sri Venkataramana
Devaru v. State of Mysore 1958 SCR 895; A.S. E
Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. 119961 3 SCR
543 : (1996) 9 SCC 548; Krishna Singh v. Mathura
Ahir, [1980) 2 SCR 660 : (1981) 3 SCC 689; Maharshi
Avdhesh v. Union of India, (1994) Supp (l) SCC 713, ·
Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminatlwswami F
Thirukoif [1996] 1 SCR1068 : (1996) 8 SCC 525;
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740;
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, [19851 3 SCR
844 : (1985) 2 SCC 556; Co111missione1; Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Shirur Mutt [1954) SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 G
SC 282; Ratilal v. State ol Bombay [19541 SCR 1035 :
AIR 1954 SC 388; Qureshi v. Stale ofBihar 1958 AIR
731 : [19591 SCR 629; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur
Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamal 12005] 4 Suppl. SCR 582 :
(2005) 8 SC::C 534; Sardar Syedna Taher Saiji1ddin H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A . Saheb v. State of Bombay 1962 AIR 853 : [19621 Suppl.
SCR 496; Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir [19801
2 SCR 660 : (1981) 3 SCC 689; Ahmedabad Women
· Action Group v. Union of India [1997) 2 SCR 389 :
(1997) 3 SCC 573; Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of
India 1994 (1) Suppl. SCC 713; Andhra Pradesh High
B
Court in the Youth Welfare Federation case. v. Union of
India (1996) ALT 1138 - referred to.
'The lawful and the prohibited in Islam" by Al-Halal Wal
Haram Fil Islam (edition -August 2009); "Woman in
Islamic Shariah" by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (published
c by Goodword Books, reprinted in 2014); "Marriage
and family life in Islam" by Prof. (Dr.)A. Rahman (Adam
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2013 edition);
Imam Abu Hanifa - Life and Work" by Allamah
Shiblinu 'mani's of Azamgarhj Universal Declaration of
D Human Rights, 1948, lntema!ional Covenant of Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, 1966; International Covenant
of Social and Political Rights, 1966; Convention on the
Political Rights of Women (1952), Declaration on the
Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed
Conflict (1974), Inter-American Convention for the
E ·Prevention, Pl.mishment and Elimination of Violence against
Women ( 195 5), Universal Declaration on Democracy ( 1997),
and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination ofAll Forms of Discrimination against Women
(1999); 'Conflict of Laws 188' (7th edition, 1974) by
F R.H. Graveson; Imam Abu Yusuf in his book "Ikhtilaaf
Abi Hanifah wabni Abi Laila" (first edition, 1357); Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application, 1937; "Marriage and
family life in Islam" by Prof. (Dr.) A. Rahman (Adam
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi 2013 Edition;
"lmamAbu Hanifa- Life and Work" by Allamah Shiblinu'
G mani's of Azamgarh; Blacks Law Dictionary (10th
edition, 2014) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
Per Nariman, J.
(2016) 2 sec 36 referred to Para 1
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 825

AIR 1952 Born 84 referred to Para2 A
[19531 SCR 1 relied on Para 16
(1957( SCR 837 relied on Para 17
(1906) ILR 30 referred to Para 20
AIR 1932 PC 25 not good law Para 57 B
[1964) 7 SCR 756 referred to Para 21.
[1954) SCR 1005 referred to Para 24
[2003( 1 Suppl. SCR 947 relied on Para 24
[2004) 2 SCR 1019 relied on Para 24 · c
[1963] Supp. l SCR 885 referred to Para 27.
[19971 2 SCR 389 not good law Para 29
(19611 1 SCR 14 relied on Para 32
[1963) 2 SCR 353 relied on Para 32
D
[1967) 2 SCR 703 referred to Para 33
(1968) 1 SCR .349 relied on Para 34
[1976) SCR 347 relied on Para 35
[19731 Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 35
E
119741 2 SCR 348 relied on ·Para 38
(19781 2 SCR 621 relied on Para 39
[19841 3 SCR 646 relied on Para 40
[19921 3 Suppl. SCR 438 relied on Par;i40·
(1981) 1 sec 122 F
relied on Para 41
[1996] 1 SCR 395 relied on Para 42
[1996) 3 SCR 721 per hicuriam Para43
[2014( 11 SCR 1009 referred to . Para 44
(1983) 2 sec 211 G
referred to Para 44
(1978) 4 sec 494 referred to Para.44
(1950) SCR 88 referred to Para 44
[19701 3 SCR 530 referred to -Para 44
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 119741 2 SCR 768 referred to Para 44
120001 4 Suppl. SCR 693 referred to Para 44
[19971 6 Suppl. SCR 717 referred to Para 46
120041 3 SCR 982 referred to Para 47
B (2011] 11 SCR 1094 referred to Para 48
[2011] 14 SCR 1 referred to Para 48
(20081 4 SCR 1 referred to Para 49
120111 13 SCR 636 referred to Para 50

c 120121 9 SCR 311 referred to Para 51
[20141 6 SCR 873 referred to Para 52
c2005) 2 sec 317 referred to Para 52
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 479 referred to Para 53
[2012] 6 SCR 661 referred to Para 53
D
[20151 12 SCR1106 referred to Para 53
c2011) 1 sec 59 referred to Para 53
[2016] 9 SCR l referred to Para 54
119851 2 SCR 287 relied on Para 55
E
120021 3 Suppl. SCR 19 relied on Para 56

Per Kurian, J.
120021 3 Suppl. SCR 19 affirmed Paras 1, 26
F
ILR (2007) 11 Delhi 1329 referred to Para 7
[19801 3 SCR 1127 approved Para 11
lLR 30 Bom 537 referred to Para U
ILR (1878) 4 Cal 588 referred to Para 12
G referred to Para 10, 12
(1981) 1 Gau LR 358
(1981) 1 Gau LR 375 referred to Para 12
AIR 1971 Ker 261 referred to Para 13
1972 KLT 512 referred to Para 13
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 827

(2003) 3 ALD 220 referred to Para 17 A
2003-1-L.W. 370 referred to Para 18
[1980] 2 SCR 660 referred to Para 18
[1997] 2 SCR 389 referred to Para 18
2010 (4) JKJ 380 referred to Para 18 B
2005 (4) KLT 565 referred to Para 20
2017 (1) KLT 300 referred to Para 22

Per Khchar2 CJI
c
AIR 1932 PC 25 needs fresh Para 30
examination
(1981) 1 Gau ..L.R. 358 referred to Para 31
(1981) 1 Gau. L.R. 375 referred to Para 32
2008 (103) DRJ 137 D
referred to Para 33
2017 (1) KLT 300 referred to Para 34
[1973) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 35
[1981) 1 SCR 206 referred to Para 35
[2014] 9 SCR 965 referred to E
Para 36
[2003) 1 Suppl. SCR 638 held inapplicable Para 36
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 947 referred to Para 36
[2015) 1 SCR 1032 referred to Para 36
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 19 distinguished Para 40 F
[1960) SCR 331 referred to Para 41
[2014) 2 SCR 1101 referred to Para 41
[2014) 12 SCR 259 referred to Para 45
[1996] 1SCR1068 referred to Para 64 G
[1994] 2 SCR 644 referred to Para 64
[2007] 12 SCR 991 referred to Para 64
[1997) 3 Suppl. SCR 404 referred to Para 64
[1999) 1 SCR 669 referred to Para 64 H
828 SUPREME COURJ REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A [19961 1 SCR 128 distinguished Para 65
[19581 SCR 895 referred to Para 67
[1996] 3 SCR 543 referred to Para 69
AIR 1952 Born 84 referred to Para 70
B [1980] 2 SCR 660 referred to Para 71
(1994) Supp (1) sec 713 referred to Para 71
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 638 referred to Para 71
[19961 1 SCR 1068 referred to Para 71

c c2001) 1 sec 140 referred to Para 71
[1985) 3 SCR 844 referred to Para 71, 160
[19541 SCR 1005 referred to Para 72
[19541 SCR1035 referred to Para 72
[1959) SCR 629 referred to Para 72
D
[2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 582 referred to Para 72
[1962) Suppl. SCR 496 referred to Para 72
[1980] 2 SCR 660 referred to Para 81
[1997) 2 SCR 389 referred to Para 81
E
(1996) ALT 1138 referred to Para 82
(1994) 1 Suppl. sec 713 referred to Para 101
c2002) 8 sec 106 relied on Para 105
[1997)' 2 SCR1086 relied on Para 105, 161
F
AIR 1971 Ker 261 referred to Para 117
(1980] 3 SCR 1127 referred to Para 118
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 442 relied on Para 161
[1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 250 referred to Para 167
G
(1999( 1 SCR 117 relied on Para 188
[2008( 1 SCR 605 relied on Para 188
[2009) l1 SCR142 relied on Para 188
[2014) 4 SCR 197 relied on Para 188
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 829

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. A
118 of2016.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2 of2015 B
W. P. (C) Nos. 288, 327, 665 of2016
W. P (C) No: 43 of2017.
. Prashanth Murthy SG, Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Tushar Mehta, Ms. Pinky
Anand, ASGs.,Amit Singh Chadda, Salman Khurshid, Anand Grover, V. C
Giri, Kapil Sibal, YusufHatim Muchhala; Raju Ramachandran, Ms. Indira
Jaising, B. H. Marlapalle, RamJethmalani, Sr. Advs., Balaji Srinivasan,
Arunava Mukherjee, Dilpreet Singh, Abhishek Bharti, Ms. Vaishnavi
Subrahmanium, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Ms. Srishti Govil, Mayank
Krinsagar, Sahil Mongia, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Kunwar Aditya Singh,
Ms~ Shivangi Singh, Suraj Prakash Singh, Jailandra Kumar Rai, Ms. D
Priya Hingorani, Ashwani Upadhyay, Ranbir Yadav, Balaji Srinivasan,
V. K. Biju, Abbay Pratap Singh, Ms. Hema Sahu, Ms. Gagan Deep
Kaur, Rajesh Pathak, Harish Pandey, Abhishek Chakraborty, Amit
Sharma, Mukesh Jain, Dwarka Sawale, Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Ms. Diksha
Rai, Ms. Ranjita Rohatgi, Abhinav Mukherjee, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, E
Rajat Nair, Devashish Bharuka, Rajesh Ranjan, Raj Bahadur,
M. K. Maroria, Ms. Kanika Saran, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, G. S. Makker,
.. Zafar Khurshid, Ms.SanchitaAin, Antony R. Julian, Ms. Azra Rehman,
· (For Mis Equity Lex Associates), Arif Mohd. Khan; Dr. Chandra Rajan,
.Ms. Reshma Arif, Aftab Ali Khan, Mustaffa Arif, Sandeep Garausa,
Ms. Afshan Pracha, Rahul Sharma, Ms. Tripati Tondon, Ms. Lorraine F
Misquith, Ms. Shrinidhi Rao, Shadan Farasat, Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Uzmi
Jameel Hussain, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Mohammed
Sadique T.A, Ms. Svadha Shankar, Keerthivas G., Amit Krishnan,
Krishna Dev J., Manav Vohra, Taiyab Khan, Mujeeb Uddin Khan, Niaz
Ahmed Farooqui, Syed Shahid Husain Rizvi, S. Mansoor, N. Aziz, Ejaz G
. Maqbool, Tahir M. Hakim, M. R. Shamshad, C. George Thomas,
Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Tanya Shree, Vikram Aditya
Narayan, Ms. Mythili Vijay Kumar Thallam, Zain Maqbool, Tahir M.
.. Hakim, SaquibAnsari~ SharifShaikh,AnsarTamboli, Shahid Nadeem.
Ishwar Mohanty, Ms. Hamsini Shankar, Ms. Meher Dev, Purushottam
. Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh ~umar Singh, Ravi Chandra Prakash, H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Amritnanda C., Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Ms. GarimaBajaj,Ajit Wagh, Aditya
Gaggar, Aproov Shukla, 0. P. Gaggar, Manoj Goel. Wajeem Shafiq,
Naman Kamb<'i, DhairyaKapoor, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Ms. Warisha
Farasat, Ms. J{cudrakshi Deo, Ahmed Said, Shadan farasat, lmtiaz
Ahmed, Ms. Naghma lmtiaz,Ahmed Zargham, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Mohd.
Ibrahim, (for Mis Equity Lex Associates), Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Joshita
8
Pai, Azmal Khan, Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Prem Prakash Singh, Aviral
Saxena, Rakesh Kailash Shanna, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Manoj
Kumar, A.P. Singh, V.P. Singh, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Ms. Pratima Rani,
Ms. Richa Singh, Pawan Trivedi, C. M. Sharma, C. K. Kcsharwani,
S.P.Singh, Ms. Surekha Srivastava, M. M. Kashyap, Ms. Rukhsana
C Choudhary, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Sandeep Garausa,
Mohd. Naved Mian, Md. Irshad Hanit~ Sahid Nadeem Ansari, Mateen
Shaikh, WasifRehman, Arshad Shaikh, Md. Razik Shaikh,AarifAli Khan,
Muzahid Ahmad, Mohd.Izhar Alam, Mata Prasad Singh, Ms. Ranjana
Rastogi Singh, Md. lrshad Hanif, Sarwar Raza, Mohd.WaseemAkram,
D Takrim Ahsan Khan, Mohd. Ateek, Ansar Tamboli, Afroz Siddiqui, M.R.
Shamshad, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Aditya Samadd~r, Mushtaq Ahmad,
Subrata Das, Reegan S. Bel, Jogy Scaria, V.K. Shukla, Mohd. Nizam
Pasha, Gautam Talukdar, Ms. Abha R.Shanna, D.S.Parmar, Sushee!
Tomar, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Kavitta Sharma, Ms. AlkaAgrawal,
Ms. Shobha, P.V. Singh, Ms. Srimato Ray, Debasis Misra, Ms. Farha
E Faiz, Vivek C. Solshe, C. G. Solshe, Mohd.Amanullah, Ms. Shabeena
J\njum, Misbah Bin Tariq, Neeraj Jha, Nikhlesh Ramachandran, Jabar
Singh, Pramod Kumar, Vishwa Pal Singh, C. M. Angadi, R. P. Goyal,
Arnn Kumar, Birendra Kumar Chowdhary, Ajay Awasthi, Raj Singh
Rana, Nitin Kumar Thakur, E.C.Agrawala, Abhi,nav Agrawal, Baldev
Ateraya, Sunil Murarka, J. S. Suhag, Jagjit Singh Suhag, Dr. Kai!ash
F
Chand, Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury, Advs., for the appear,ing parties.
The Judgments and Order of the Court were delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI

G

SL No Divisions Cmtents Para-
grnphs .
1. Part-I The 1x1itirner's nnrital discon~ and the 1-10
i;ctitirner's prayers
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 831
"[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

A
2. Parl-2 The prncticed modes of 'talaq' amongst 11-16
Muslims .

3. Part-3 The Holy Quran -with reference to 17-21
'talaq'
4. Pmt4 Legislation in India, in the field of 22-27 B
Muslim 'personal law'
5. Patt-5 Abrogation of the practice of 'talaq-e- 28-29
biddat' by legislation, the world over, in
Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States :
.

A. Laws of Arab States (i)-(xiii)
. c
B. Laws ofSmrtheast Asian States
. .
(i) -(iii)
c. Laws of Sub-continental States (i) '-(ii)
6: Part-6 Judicial pronouncements, on the subject 30- 34
.
of 'talaq-e-biddat'
.

7. Part-7 The petitioner's and the intervencrs · 35- 78 . .D
contentions:
8. Part-S The rebuttal ofthe_petitieners' 79-"lll
contentions ·
.. 9. Part-9 · Consideration of the rival contentions, · 112--114
and our conclusions . ' E
L Does the judgment of the Privy Council 115-120
in the Rashid Ahmad case, upholding
'talaq-e-biddat', require a relooh.1
II. Has 'talaq-e-biddat', which is 121-12(
concededly sinful, sanction of Jaw? ' .
F
III. Ts the p·rnctice of 'talaq-e-biddat', · 128-139
approved/disapproved by,. "ha.di ths"?'" -

IV. ls the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', a 1'40-145
matter of faith for Muslims? If yes,
whether it isa constituent of their
.
'personal law'? G
v. Did tl)e Muslim Personal Law<(Shaiiat) . 146-157
Application Act, 1937 confer statu.t01y ·
status to tlic subjects regulated by the.
said Jegislatio11? .

I-1 '
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A
VI. Does 'talaq-e-biddat', violate the 158-165
parameters expressed in Article 25 of
the Constitution?
VII. Constitutional morality and 'talaq-e- 166-174
biddat'.
B VITI. Reforms to 'personal law' in India. 175-182
IX. Impact of international conventions and 183-189
declarations on 'talaq-c-biddar.
X. Conclusions emerging out of the above 190-190
consideration
c 10. Part-I 0 The declaration 191-201
Part-1.
The petitioner's marital discord, and the petitioner's prayers:
1. The petitioner-Shayara Bano, has approached this Court, for
D assailing the divorce pronounced by her husband - Rizwan Ahmad on
10.10.2015, wherein he affirmed" .. .in the presence of witnesses saying
that I gave 'talak, talak, talak', hence like this I divorce from you from
my wife. From this date there is no relation of husband and wife. From
today I am 'haraam', and I have become 'naamharram'. In future you
E are free for using your life ... ". The aforesaid divorce was pronounced
before Mohammed Yaseen (son of Abdul Majeed) and Ayaaz Ahmad
(son of Jtyaz Hussain)- the two witnesses. The petitioner has sought a
declaration, that the 'talaq-e-biddat' pronounced by her husband on
10.10.2015 be declared as void ab initio. 1t is also her contention, that
such a divorce which abruptly, unilaterally and ilTevocably tenninates
F the ties of matrimony, purportedly under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal
Law (Shariat) Appl icationAct, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as, the Shariat
Act), be declared unconstitutional. During the course of hearing, it was
submitted, that the 'talaq-e-biddat' (-triple talaq), pronounced by her
husband is not valid, as it is not a part of 'Shariat' (Muslim 'personal
G law'). It is also the petitioner's case, that divorce of the instant nature,
cannot be treated as "rnle of decision" under the Shariat Act. It was
also submitted, that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' is violative of the
fundamental rights guan.. ;kt:d to citizens in India, under Articles 14, 15
and 21 of the Constitut; . ,, also the petitioner's case, that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' canP , ·.~pr 'tected under the rights granted to religious
H
SHAYARA BANO . v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 833
[JAGDISH SJNGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

denominations (-or any sections thereof) under Articles 25(1),26(b) and A
29 of the Constitution. It was submitted, that the practice of 'talaq-e-
biddat' is denounced internationally, and further, a large number of Muslim
theocratic countries, have forbidden the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', and
as such, the same cannot be considered sacrosanctal to .the tenets of the
Muslim religion.
B
2. The counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 - the petitioner's
husband - Rizwan Ahmad, discloses, that the 'nikah' (marriage) between
the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11,04.2001, as per
'Shariat', at Allahabad. Jt was submitted, that the petitioner - Shayara
Bano, performed her matrimonial duties intermittently, coming and leaving
the matrimonial home from time to time. The matrimonial relationship C
between the .parties resulted in the births. of two children, a son -
Mohammed Irfan (presently about 13 years old) studying in the 7'h
standard, and a daughter - Umaira Naaz (presently abollt 11 years old)
studying in the 4'h standard, both at Allahabad.
3. It is the case of the respondent-husband, that the petitioner- .D
wife, left her matrimonial home on 9.4.2015 in the company of her
father - Iqbal Ahmad and maternal uncle--:- Raees Ahmed, as well as
children - Mohammed Irfan and Umaira Naaz, to live in her pilrerital
home. The respondent clainis, that he continued to visit the petitioner,
for giving her maintenance, and for enquiring about her well being. When E
the husband met the wife at her parental home in May and June 201 S,
she refused to accompany him, and therefore, refused to .return to the
matrimonial home. On 03.07.2015, RizwanAhmad, asked thefather of
. Shayara Bano to send her back to her matrimonial home. He was
informed by her father, after a few days, that the petitioner was not
inclined to live with the respondent. · F

4. On 07.07.2015 the father of the petifiener, brought the two
children - Mohammed Irfan and Umaira Naaz to Allahabad. The husband
submits, that both the children have thereafter been in his care.and custody,
at Allahabad. It is the assertion of the husband, that the petitioner's •
father had given him the impression, t11at the petitioner would be inclined 0.
to return to Allahabad; consequent upon the husband's care and custody
of both children, at the matrimonial home.
5. It is claimed by the respondent-husband, that he made another
attempt to bring back' the petitioner-wife from her parental home on .
09.08.20 IS, but Shayara Barto refused to accompany him. It is submitted, H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I7] 9 S.C.R.

A that Rizwan Ahmad was opposed in the above endeavour, both by the
petitioner's father and her maternal tmcle.
6. Finding himself in the above predicament, Rizwan Ahmad
approached the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh, by preferring Matrimonial Case No.1144 o"f 2015 with a
B prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner-Shayara Bano,
preferred Transfer Petition (C) No. 1796 of 2015, under Section 25 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XXXVI-8 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, for the transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 1144
of2015, filed by the respondent-husband (seeking restitution ofconjugal
rights) pending at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, to the P1incipal Judge, Family
c Court, Kashipur, Uttarakhand. In the above transfer petition, the wife
inter afia asserted as under:
"2.3 The Petitioner who hails from Kashipur, Uttarakhand is
unemployed and her father is a government employee. The only
somce of income is the Petitioner's father who has a low income
D and despite this the Petitioner during the time of marriage had
made arrangements beyond their capacity. But soon after the
marriage the Respondent husband started demanding for
additional dowry and made unreasonable demands for a car and
cash.
E 2.4 The Petitioner who rightfully denied the demands of the
Respondent was tortured and physically abused by the
Respondent and his family. She was often beaten and kept hungry
in a close,d room for days. The family of the Respondent
administered her with medicines that caused her memory to fade.
F Duet? the medicines she remained unconscious for long hours.
xxx xxx xxx
2.6 On 09.04.2015, the Respondent attempted to kill the Petitioner
by administering medicines. These medicines on inspection by
a doctor on a later date were revealed to came loss of mental
G balance after regular consumption. The Respondent brought the
Petitioner to Moradabad in a critical near-death condition with
the intention of abandoning her if his dowry demands were not
fulfilled.
2.7. Thereafter on 10.04.2015 the Respondent called the parents
H of the Petitioner to Moradabad to take their daughter. The parents
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 835
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

of the Petitioner requested him to come to Kashipur to meet and A
settle the issue. He refused to go to Kashipur and said that they
should come and take their daughter or fulfil his demands for
more dowry. He demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh
Only).
2.8. Due to the unreasonable demands and the torturous B
behaviour of the Respondent husband, the Petitioner's parents
·came to Moradabad to take her and she was forced to stay with
her parents after 10.04.2015.
xxx xxx xxx
2.13 The Respondent has filed for restitution despite the fact C
that he himself had asked the Petitioner wife's father to either
fulfil his dowry demands or to take the Petitioner back to her .
maternal home and in pursuance of the same had drugged the
Petitioner and had left her in Moradabad."
7. It is the case of the respondent-RizwanAhmad, that in view of. D
the above averments of the petitioner-Shayara Bano, he felt that his
wife was not ready for reconciliation, and therefore, he withdrew the
suit (-for restitutiQn of conjugal rights), preferred by him at Allahabad,
and divorced the petitioner-Shayara Bano, by serving upon her a 'talaq-
nama' (deed of divorce) dated 10.10.2015. The text of the 'talak~nama', E
is reproduced below:
"Deed of Divorce
Dated 10.10.2015
Madam,
F
Shayra Bano D/o Iqbal Ahmad.
RL· it clear that I RizwanAhmed married with you without any dowry to
spend a peaceful and happy ma1ital life. After maJTiage you came in my
marital tie. From the relation between you and me two issues namely
Irfan Ahmad aged about 13 years and Kumari Htimaira Naz (ii} Muskan G
aged about 11 years were born who are receiving education living under
my guardianship. With a great sorrow it is being written that you, just
after. 6 months of marriage, with your unreasonable and against Sharia
acts started to pressurize me to live separately from my parents. I, in
a
order to keep you happy and as per your wish started to live at rented
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A house at Mahalia Ghausnagar and while working as a clerk under a
builder tried my level best to spend peaceful marital life with you and
children. However, you, in an unreasonable manner and against Shriah
continued to create problem and quarrel in house on regular basis. When
you were asked the reason in a very affectionate manner about two
years ago, you had put a condition that now when your other relatives
B
are not with you in such situation come with me to my parents' house
and live further life there. I being a person from a self-respecting family
refused to live as 'son in law living at in-laws house'. Then you, under
the influence ofyour parents, continued to fake various mental and physical
pains and continued to behave life a mental patient. When tried to know
C the reason then you after much difficulty told that you had med with a
seriqus accident before marriage. I for the sake of my children and you
tolerated that. I became despondent from your persistent demand of
living at your parental house and your being of stubborn nature, your
giving threarof implicating in false case and threat of inflicting injury to
yourself and of consuming poison and implicating me in false case on
that count given on daily 6asis and complained about the same to your
paternal uncle but your father replied that whenever you do such acts
sleeping pills be given to you. I found this very baftling, upon asking your
father told that since the time before your marriage you had been under
treatment for mental ailment. I ignored such a big incident and the
E information received about you. Resultantly you became audacious in
your behavior. When reported all these things to your father, your father
told me that this is the time of children's holidays you be sent to your
parents' house with children. You take them back after the atmosphere
is changed and summer vacations are over. Acting on the words of your
father I left you at your parents~ place along with children and while
F
going, you took away gold jewelry given by me including a gold neck set
of two Tolas, gold bangles of one and a half Tola, two gold rings of half
Tola and cash Rs.15,000/-. I continued to visit you· enquiring your
wellbeing and giving you expenses from time to time. That in the month
of May and June when I tried to bring you then you gave excuses and
· G pleas. I continued to make.'repeated attempts between May to July to
bring you back but ultimately on 03.07.2015 you clearly refused to return
and on 07.07.2015 you father brought both the children at Allahabad
Railway Station and left them there informing me and gave threat on
phone that either you will come here and live or shall perform the role of
·father and mother of both the children. In this regard when I enquired
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 837
[J_AGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

from you then you also refused to return in clear wo·rds and said to the A
extent that you raise the children and forget me or separate from me to
bring another mother for the children. On this also I could not satisfy
myself; whereupon I filed a suit for bringing you back. After receiving
notice, out of the blues you threatened me on phone that I will soon file
a case and will tell you how a son in law is kept at the in-laws _house. B
Being fed up with your unreasonable conduct and against Sharaih acts I
found it better to separate from you, therefore, I on 8.10.2015 applied
for dismissal of the suit for bringing you back and now I, in my full
senses and in the presence of marginal witnesses, release you from my
marriage in the light ofShariah through tripe! talaq by uttering 'I give
talaq', 'I give talaq', 'I give talaq'. Froin today the relation of husband C
and wife forever ends between you and me. After today you are unlawful
for me and I have become unlawful for you. You are free to spend your
life the way you want.
Note: So far is the question of your dower (Mehr) and expenses of ·
waiting period (iddat) that I am paying through demand draft no.096976 D
dated 06.10.2015 drawn at Allahabad Bank, Karaili, Allahabad Branch,
which comprises a sum of Rs. l 0, 151 towards payment of dower and
Rs.5;5001- towards the expenses of waiting period which I am sending
along with this written deed of divorce, you kindly take paid to accept
the same.
E
Dated 10.102015
Witnesses:-
1. Mohd. Yaseen, s/oAbdul Majid, Rio J.K. Colony, Ghaus Nagar, Kara.iii,
Allahabad; F
2. AyazAlimed S/o Imtiyaz Hussain Rio G.T.B. Nagar, Karaili Scheme,
Allahabad

Sd/ Hindi Ri~an Ahmed
(Rizwan Ahmed) G
S/o Iqbal Ahmed
Ghaus Nagar, Karaili, Allahabad,"

8. Based on the above, the case of the respondent-husband is,
that he had pronounced 'talaq' in-consonan_ce with the prevalent and H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A valid mode of dissolution of Muslim marriages. It was submitted, that
the pronouncement of divorce by him, fulfils all the requirements of a
valid divorce, under the Hanafi sect of Sunni Muslims, and is in
consonance with 'Shariat' (Muslim 'personal law').
9. It is also the submission of the respondent-husband, that the
B present writ petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, is not maintainable, as the questions raised in the
petition are not justiciable under Article 32 of the Constitution. I;
10. Keeping in view the factual aspect in the present case, as
also, the complicated questions that arise for consideration in this case
c (and, in the other connected cases), at the very outset, it was decided to
limit the instant consideration, to 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq. Other
questions raised in the connected writ petitions, spch as, polygamy and
'halala' (-and other allied matters), would be dealt with separately. The
determination of the present controversy, may however, coincidentally
render an answer even to the connected issues.
D
Part-2.
The nracticed modes of'talag' amongst Muslims:
11. Since the issue under consideration is the dissolution ofmarriage
by 'talaq', under the Islamic law of divorce, it is imperative, to understand
E the concept of'talaq'. In this behalf, it is relevant to mention, that under
the Islamic law, divorce is classified into three categories. Talaq
understood simply, is a means of divorce, at the instance of the husband.
'Khula', is another mode of divorce, this divorce.is at the instance of the
wife. The third category of divorce is 'mubaraat' - divorce by mutual
consent.
F
12. 'Talaq', namely, divorce at the instance of the husband, is also
of three kinds - 'talaq-e-ahsan', 'talaq-e-hasan' and 'talaq-e-biddat'.
The petitioner's contention before this Court is, that 'talaq-e-ahsan',
and 'talaq-e-hasan' are both approved by the 'Quran' and' hadith'. 'Talaq-
e-ahsan', is considered as the 'most reasonable' form of divorce, whereas,
G
'talaq-e-hasan' is also considered as 'reasonable'. It was submitted,
that 'talaq-e-biddat' is neither recognized by the 'Quran' nor by 'hadith',
and as such, is to be considered as sacrosanctal to Muslim religion. The
controversy which has arisen for consideration before this Court., is with

I
referenc to 'talaq-e-biddat'.
H
...
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 839
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

13. It is necessary for the determination·ofthe present controversy, A
to understand the parameters, and the nature of the different kinds of
'tafaq'. 'Talaq-e-ahsan' is a single pronouncement of 'talaq' by the
husband, followed by a period of abstinence. The period of abstinence
is described as 'iddat'. The duration of the 'iddat' is ninety days or three
menstrual cycles (in case, where the wife is menstruating). Alternatively, B
the period of 'iddat' is of three lunar months (in case, the wife is not
menstruating). If the couple resumes cohabitation or intimacy, within the
period of 'iddat', the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having
been revoked. Therefore, 'talaq-e-ahsan' is revocable. Conversely, if
there is no resumption of cohabitation or intimacy, during the period of
'iddat', then the divorce becomes final and irrevocable, after the expiry C
of the 'iddat' period. It is considered irrevocable because, the couple is
. forbidden to resume marital relationship thereafter, unless they contract
a fresh 'nikah' (-marriage), with a fresh 'mahr'. 'Mahr' is a mandatory
payment, in the form of money or possessions, paid or promised to be
paid,.by the groom or by the groom's father, to the bride, at the time of D
marriage, which legally becomes her property. However, on the third
pronouncement of such a 'talaq', the couple cannot remarry, unless the
wife first marries someone else, and only after her marriage with other
person has been dissolved (either through 'talaq' - divorce, or death),
can the couple remarry. Amongst Muslims, 'talaq-e-ahsan' is regarded
as - 'the most proper' form of divorce. E
14. 'Talaq-e-hasan' is pronounced in the same manner, as 'talaq-
e-ahsan'. Herein, in place of a single pronouncement, there are three
successive pronouncements. After the first pronouncement of divorce,
if there is resumption ofcohabitation within a period of one month, the
·pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked. The same F
procedure is mandated to be followed, after the expiry of the first month
(during which marital ties have not been resumed). 'Talaq' is pronounced
again. After the second pronouncement of'talaq', ifthere is resumption
of cohabitation within a period of one month, the pronouncement of
divorce is treated as having been revoked. It is significant to note, that
the first and the second pronouncements may be revoked by the husband. G
If he does so, either expressly or by resuming conjugal relations, 'talaq'
pronounced by the husband becomes ineffective, as if no 'talaq' had
ever been expressed. If the third 'talaq' is pronounced, it becomes
irrevocable. Therefore, if no revocation is made after the first and the
second declaration, and the husband makes 'the third pronouncement, in H
'

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A the third 'tuhr' (period of purity), as soon as the third declaration is
made, the 'talaq' becomes irrevocable, and the marriage stands dissolved,
whereafter, the wife has to observe the required 'iddat' (the period after
divorce, during which a woman cannot remarry. Its purpose is to ensure,
that the male parent of any offspring is clearly identified). And after the
third 'iddat', the husband and wife cannot remarry, unless the wife first
B
marries someone else, and only after her marriage with another person
has been dissolved (either through divorce or death), can the couple
remarry. The distinction between 'talaq-e-ashan' and 'talaq-e-hasan' is,
that in the former there is a single pronouncement of 'talaq' followed by
abstinence during the period of 'iddat', whereas, in the latter there are
c three pronouncements of 'talaq', interspersed with abstinence. As against
'talaq-e-ahsan', which is regarded as 'the most proper' form of divorce,
Muslims regard 'talaq-e-hasan' only as 'the proper form of divorce'.
15. The third kind of 'talaq' is- 'talaq-e-biddat'. This is effected
by one definitive pronouncement of 'talaq' such as, "I talaq you
D irrevocably" or three simultaneous pronouncements, like "talaq, talaq,
talaq'', uttered at the same time, simultaneously. In 'talaq-e-biddat',
divorce is effective forthwith. The instant talaq, unlike the other two
categories of 'talaq' is irrevocable at the ve1y moment it is pronounced.
Even amongst Muslims 'talaq-e-biddat', is considered irregular.
E 16.According to the petitioner, there is no mention of 'talaq-e-
biddat' in the Quran. It was however acknowledged, that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' can be traced to the second centmy, after the advent
of Islam. It was submitted, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is recognized only by a
few Sunni schools. Most prominently, by the Hanafi sect of Sunni Muslims.
It was however emphasized, that even those schools that recognized
F 'talaq-e-biddat' described it, "as a sinful form of divorce". It is
acknowledged, that this form of divorce, has been described as "bad in
theology, but good in Jaw". We have recorded the instant position at this
juncture, because learned counsel for the rival parties, uniformly
acknowledge. the same.
G Part-3.
The Holy Ouran - with reference to 'talaq':
17. Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed by God to the
Prophet Muhammad over a period of about 23 years, beginning from
H 22 .12 .609, when Muhammad was 40 years old. The revelation continued
SHAYARA BANO v.· UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 841
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

upto the year 632 - the year of his death. Shortly after Muhammad's A
death, the Quran was completed by his companions, who had either
.written it down, or had memorized parts of it. These compilations had
differences of perception. Therefore, Caliph Usman - the third, in the
line of caliphs recorded a standard version of the Quran, now known as
Usman 's codex. This codex is generally treated, as the original rende1ing B
of the Quran.
18. During the course of hearing, references to the Quran were
made from 'The Holy Quran: Text Translation and Commentary' by
Abdullah YusufAli, (published by Kitab Bhawan, New Delhi, l 4'h edition,
2016). Learned counsel representing the rival parties commended, that C
the text and translation in this book, being the most reliable, could safely
be relied upon. The text and the inferences are therefore drawn from
the above publication.
(i) The Quran is divided into 'suras' (chapters). Each 'sura' contains
'verses', which are arranged in sections. Since our determination is
limited to the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat', within the framework of the D
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', we shall only make a reference to
such 'verses' from the Quran, as would be relevant for our above
determination. In this behalf, reference may first be made to 'verses'
222 and 223 contained in 'section' 28 of 'sura' II. The same are
reproduced below: E
"222. They ask thee
Concerning women's courses.
Say : They are
A hurt and a pollution :
F
So keep away from women
In their courses, and do not ·
Approach them until
They are clean.
But when they have G
Purified themselves,
Ye may approach them
In any manner, time, or place
Ordained for you by God.
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A For God loves those
Who turn to Him constantly
And he loves those
Who keep themselves pure and clean.

B
223.Your wives are
As a tilth unto you ;
So approach yollr tilth
When or how ye will ;
C But do some good act
For your souls beforehand;
And fear God,
And know that ye are
To meet Him (in the Hereafter),
D And give (these) good tidlings
To those who believe."
The above 'verses' have been extracted by us for the reason, that the
Quran mandates respectability at the hands of men - towards women.
'Verse' 222 has been interpreted to mean, that matters of physical
E cleanliness and purity should be looked at, not only from a man's point of
view, but also from the woman's point of view. The 'verse' mandates,
that if there is danger of hurt to the woman, she should have every
consideration. The Quran records, that the action, of men towards women
are often worse. lt mandates, that the same should be better with
F reference to the woman's health, both mental and spiritual. 'Verse' 223
postulates, that sex is as solemn, as any other aspect of life. lt is
compared to a husband-man's tilth, to illustratively depict, that in the
same manner as a husband-man sows his fields, in order to reap a harvest,
by choosing his own time and mode of cultivation, by ensuring that he
G does not sow out of season, or cultivate in a manner which will injure or
exhaust the soil. So also, in the relationship towards a wife, 'verse' 223
exalts the husband, to be wise and considerate towards her, and treat
her in such manner as will neither injure nor exhaust her. 'Verses' 222
and 223 exhort the husband, to extend every kind of mutual consideration,
as is required towards a wife.
H
..,
.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 843 · .
' '
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] .

(ii) Reference is also necessary to 'verses' 224 to 228 contained in section A
28 of 'sura' II of the Quran. The same are extracted below:
"224. And make not
God's (name) an excuse 4
..1,

In your oaths against
.B ,
Doing good, or acting rightly,
Or making peace
Between persons; .... . ~

For God is one ...
Who heareth and knoweth c
All things. ·~
225. God will not
Call you to account
For thougbtlessness
In your oaths,
' D
But for the intention
In your hearts;
And He is
.' Oft-forgiving E
Most Forbearing.
226 ..For those who take
An oath for abstention
From thejr wives,
A waiting for four months F
Is ordained;
If then they return,
God is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.
G
227. But if their intention
ls firm for divorce,
Godheareth ,.
· And knoweth all things.
H
j\

844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 228. Divorced women
Shall wait concerning themselves
For three monthly periods.
"Noris it lawful for them
To hide what God
B
Hath created in their wombs,
If they have faith
In God and the Last Day.
And their husbands
c Have the better right
To take them back
In that period, if
They wish for reconciliation.
And women shall have rights
D
Similar to the rights
Against them, according
To what is equitable;
But men have a degree
E (Of advantage) over them
And God is Exalted in Power
Wise."
'Verse' 224, has a reference to many special kinds of oaths practised
amongst Arabs. Some of the oaths even related to matters concerning
F sex. These oaths caused misunderstanding, alienation, division or
separation between husbands and wives. 'Verses' 224 to 227 are pointed
references to such oaths. Through 'verse' 224, the Quran ordains in
general terms, that no one should make an oath-in the name of God, as
an excuse for not doing the right thing, or for refraining from doing
G something which will bring people together. The text relied upon suggests,
that 'verses' 225 to 227 should be read together with 'verse' 224. 'Verse'
224 is general and leads up to the next three 'verses'. These 'verses'
are in the context of existing customs, which were very unfair to married
women. Illustratively, it was sought to be explained, that in a fit of anger
or caprice, sometimes a husband would take an oath - in the name of
H God, not to approach his wife. This act of the husband, it was' sought to

Ii
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 845
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
" be explained, deprives the wife of her conjugal rights, and yet, keeps her A
tied to the husand indefinitely, inasmuch as, she has no right to remarry.
Even if this act of the husband, was protested by the wife, the explanation
provided is, that the husband was bound - by the oath in the name of
God. Through the above verses, the Quran disapproves thoughtless
. oaths, and at the same time, insists on a proper solemn and conscious/
B
purposeful oath, being scrupulously observed. The above 'verses' caution
husbands to understand, that an oath in the name of God was not a valid
excuse.- since God looks at intention, and not mere thoughtless words.
It is in these circumstances, that 'verses' 226 and227 postulate, that the
h'usband and wife in a difficult relationship, are allowed a period of four
months, to determine whether an adjustment is possible. Even though c
reconciliation is recommended, but ifthe couple is against reconciliation,
the Quran ordains, that it is unfair to keep the wife tied to her husband
~.

I indefinitely. The Quran accordingly suggests, that in such a situati9n,
'j
divorce is the only fair and equitable course. All the same it is recognized,
that divorce is the most hateful action, in the sight of the God.
D
(iii) 'Verses' 229 to 231 contained in 'section' 29 of'sura' II, (lnd 'verses'
232 and 233 included in 'section' 30 of 'sura' U, as· also 'verse' 237
contained in 'section' 31 in 'sura' II, are relevant on the issue of divorce.
The same are extracted below:
.I
"229. A divorce is only E
Permissible twice: after that,
The parties should either.hold
Together on equitable terms,
Or separate with kindness.
It is not lawful for you, F
(Men), to take back
Any of your gifts (from yol.lr wives),
. Except when both parties
. Fear that ~hey would be G
Unable to keep the limits
Ordained by God.
Ifye (judges) do indeed
.Fear that they would be
Unable to keep the limits H

"
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Ordained by God,
There is no blame on either
Of them if she give
Something for her freedom.
These are the limits
B
Ordained by God;
So do not transgress them
If any do transgress
The limits ordained by God,
c Such persons wrong
(Themselves as well as others)
230.So if a husband
Divorces his wife (irrevocably),
He cannot, after that,
D Re-marry her until
After she has married
Another husband and
He has divorced her.
E In that case there is
No blame on either of them
If they re-unite, provided
They feel that they

F
Can keep the '1imits I
Ordained by God.
Such are the limits lr
Ordained by God,
Which He makes plain
G To those who understand.
231.When ye divorce
Women, and they fulfil
The term ofthei~ ('Jddat') .
Either taken them back
H On equitabl!'l terms

I
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA ANP OTHERS 847
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
;
Or set them free A
On equitable terms; .
But do not take them back
To injure them, (or) to take
Undue advantage;
B
If ~Y one does that,
He wrongs his own soul.
Do not treat God's Signs
As a jest,
But solemnly rehearse c
God's favours on you,
And the fact that He
Send down to you
The Book
And Wisdom, D
For your instruction.
And tear God,
And know that God
ls well acquainted E
·with all things."
A perusal of the aforesaid 'verses' reveals, that divorce for tbe reason
of mutual incompatibility is allowed. There is however a recorded word
of caution - that the parties could act in haste .and then repent; and
thereafter again reunite, and yet again, separate. To prevent erratic and F
fitful repeated separations and reunions, a limit of two divorces is
prescribed. In other words, reconciliation after two divorces is allowed.
After the second divorce, the parties must definitely make up their mind,
either to dissolve their ties permanently, or to live together honourably, in
mutual love and forbearance - to hold together on equitable terms.
However, if separation is inevitable even on reunion after the second· G
divorce, easy reunion is not permitted. The husband and wife are forbidden
from casting aspersions on one another. They are mandated to recognize,
what is right and honourable, on a collective consideration· of all
circumstances. After the divorce, a husband cannot seek the return of
gifts or properties, he may have given to his wife. Such retention by the·. H
.-
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A wife is permitted, only in recognition that the wife is economically weaker.
An exception has been carved out in the second part of 'verse' 229, that
in situations where the freedom of the wife could suffer on account of
the husband refusing to dissolve the marriage, and perhaps, also treat
her with cruelty. It is permissible for the wife, in such a situation, to
B extend some material consideration to the husband. Separation of this
kind, at the instance of the wife, is called 'khula'. 'Verse' 230 is in
continuation of the first part of'verse' 229. The instant 'verse' recognizes
the permissibility of reunion after two divorces. When divorce is
pronounced for the third time, between the same parties, it becomes
irreversible, until the woman marries some other man and he divorces
C her (or is otherwise released from the matrimonial tie, on account of his •
death). The Quranic expectation in 'verse' 230, requires the husband to,
restrain himself, from dissolving the matrimonial tie, on a sudden gust of
temper or anger. 'Verse' 231 provides, that a man who takes back his
wife after two divorces, must not put pressure on her, to prejudice her
rights in any way. Remarriage must only be on equitable terms,
D whereupon, the husband and wife are expected to lead a clean· and
honourable life, respecting each other's personalities. The Quranic
message is, that the husband should either take back the wife on equitable
terms, or should set her free with kindness.
(iv) The 'verses' referred to above need to be understood along with
E 'verses' 232 and233, contained in 'section' 20 of'sura' 11, of the Quran.
The above two 'verses' are extracted below:
"232. When ye divorce
Women, and they fulfil
F
The terin of their ('Iddat'),
Do not prevent them
From marrying
Their (former) husbands,
If they mutually agree
G On equitable terms.
This instruction
Is for all amongst you,
Who believe in God
And the Last Day.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 849
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

That is (the course Making for) more virtue A
And purity amongst you,
And God knows,
And ye know not.
233. The mothers shall give suck
B
To their offspring
For two whole years,
If the father desires
To complete the term.
But he shall bear the cost c
Of their food and clothing
On equitable terms.
No soul shall have
A burden laid on it
D
Greater than it can bear.
No mother shall be
Treated unfairly
On account of his child,
An heir shall be chargeable E
In the same way.
If they both decide
On weaning,
By mutual consent,
F
And after due consultation,
There is no blame on them.
lfye decide
On a foster-mother
For your offspring,·· G
There is no blame on you,
Provided ye pay (the mother)
What ye offered, .
On equitable terms.
But fear God and know H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9· S.C.R.

A That God sees well
What ye do."
A perusal of the above 'verses' reveals, that the termination of the
contract of marriage, is treated as a serious matter for family and social
life. And as such, every lawful advice, which can bring back those who
.B had lived together earlier, provided there is mutual love and they can live
with each other on honourable terms, is commended. After following
the above parameters, the Quran ordains, that it is not right for outsiders
to prevent the reunion of the husband and wife. 'Verse' 233 is in the
midst of the regulations on divorce. It applies primarily to cases of divorce,
C where some definite rule is necessary, as the father and mother would
not, on account of divorce, probably be on good terms, and the interest
of children must be safeguarded. Since the language of 'verse' 233 is
general, the edict contained therein is interpreted, as applying equally to
· the father and mother, inasmuch as, each must fulfil his or her part, in
the fostering of children.
D (v) The last relevant 'verse' in 'sura' II of the Quran, is contained in
'section' 31, namely, 'verse' 237. The same is reproduced below:
"237. And if ye divorce them
Before consummation,
E But after the fixation
Of a dower for them,
Then the half of the dower
(Is due to them), unless
.They remit it
F Or (the man's halt) is remitted
By him in whose hands
Ils the marriage tie;
And the remission
(Of the, man's half)
G
Is the nearest to righteousness.
And do not forget
Liberality between yourselves.
For God sees well
H All that ye do."
· SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 851 ·
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

In case of divorce before consummation of marriage, it is recognized, A
that only half the dower fixed needed to be refunded to the wife. It is
however open to the wife, to remit the half due to her. And likewise, it is.
; '
.open to the husband to remit the half which he is entitled to deduct (and
thus pay the whole dower amq_4nt).
19. Reference is also necessary to 'verses' 34 and 35, contained B
in 'section'6,aswellas, 'verse' 128containedin 'section' 19,of'sura'.
IV. Allthe above verses are extracted below: ·
"34. Men are the protectors
And maintainers of women,
Because God has given c
The one more (strength)
Than the other, and because
They support them
From their means.
D
Therefore the righteous women
Are devoutiy obedient, and guard
In (the husband's) absence
What God would have them
guard. E

J As to those women
-On whose part ye fear
Disloyalty and ill-conduct,
Admonish them (first),
F
(Next), refuse to share their beds,
(And last) beat them (lightly);
But if they return to obedience,
Seek not against them
Means (of annoyance): G.
For God is Most High,
Great (above you all).
35. lfye fear a breach
Between them twain,
H
I'
.J
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

. I
A Appoint (two) arbiters,
One from his family,
And the other from hers;
If they wish for peace,
God will cause
B
Their reconciliation:
For God hath full knowledge,
And is acquainted
With all things."
c Section 19, Sura IV
"128.If a wife fears
Cruelty or desertion
On her husband's part,
There is no blame on them,
D If they arrange
An amicable settlement
Between themselves;
And such settlement is best;
E Even though men's souls
Are swayed by greed.
But if ye do good
-
And practice self-restraint
God is well-acquainted
F With all that ye do."
The Quran declares· men as protectors, and casts a duty on them to
maintain their women. In order to be entitled to the husband's support,
the Qw-an ordains the women to be righteous, .and to be devoutly obedient
to the husband, even in his absence. 'Verse' 34, extends to the husband
G the right to admonish his wife who is either disloyal, or ill-conducts herself.
Such admonition can be by refusing to share her bed, and as a last
resort, even to beat her lightly. Thereafter, if the woman does not return
to obedience, the husband is advised not to use means of annoyance
against her.. 'Verse' 35, sets out the course of settlement of family
H disputes. It postulates the appointment of two arbitrators - one
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 853
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

representing the family of the husband, and the other the family of the A
wife. The arbitrators are mandated to explore the possibility of
reconciliation. In case reconciliation is not possible, dissolution is advised,
without publicity or mud-throwing or by resorting to trickery or deception.
'Verse' 128 provides for divorce at the instance of the wife- 'khula'. It
provides for a situation where, the wife fears cruelty or desertion on her B
husband's part. Jn such a situation, her desire to seek an amicable
settlement, cannot be treated as an aspersion on her. The couple must
then settle to separate, on most amicable terms. The husband is cautioned
not to be greedy. He is required to protect the wife's economic interest.
In case of disputation between the couple, for economic reasons, the
Quran ordains, that sanctity of the marriage itself, is far greater than any C
economic interest, and accordingly suggests, that if separation can be
prevented by providing some economic consideration to the wife, it is
better for the husband to make such a concession, than to endanger the
future of the wife and children.
20. The last relevant 'verses' -1 and2, are contained in 'section' D
1 of 'sura' - LXV. The same are reproduced below:
"l. Prophet! When ye
Do divorce women,
Divorce them at their
Prescribed periods, E
And count (accurately)
Their prescribed periods:
And fear God your Lord:
And turn them not out F
Of their houses, nor shall
They (themselves) leave,
Except in case they are
Guilty of SOl}le open lewdness,
Those are limits
Set by God: and.any
Who transgresses the limits
Of God, does verily
Wrong his (own) soul:
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Thou knowest not if
Perchance God will
Bring about thereafter
Some new situation.
2. Thus when they fulfil
B
Their term appointed,
Either take them back
On equitable terms
Or part with them
c On equitable terms;
And take for witness
Two persons from among you,
Endued with justice,
And establish the evidence
D (As) before God. Such
Is the admonition given
To him who believes
In God and the Last Day.
E And for those who fear
God, He (ever) prepares
A way out,"
"Verse' l above, it may be noticed, has reference to the Prophet
Muhammad himself. lt is addressed in his capacity as teacher and
F representative of the community. It endorses the view, that of all things
permitted, divorce is the most hateful in the sight of the God. Even
though, the 'verse' provides for divorce, it proscribes the husband from
turning out his wife/wives from his house. It also forbids the wife/wives,
to leave the house of their husband, except when they are guilty. Those
G who transgress the above limitation, are cautioned, that they are
committing wrong to their own souls. Reconciliation is suggested,
whenever it is possible. It is recommended at every stage: The first
serious difference between the spouses is first to be submitted to a family
counsel, on which both sides are to be represented. The 'verse' requires
the divorce to be pronounced, only after the period of prohibit01y waiting.
H 'Dower' has to be paid, and due provisions have to be made, by the
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 855
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

husband, for many things on equitable terms. On each aspect, there is A
to be consideration. Reconciliation is recommended till the last moment.
The message contained in 'verse' 2 is, that everything should be done
fairly, and all interests should be safeguarded. It is ordained, that the
parties should remember, that such matters affect the most intimate aspect
of their lives, and therefore, have a bearing even in the spiritual kingdom.
It is therefore, that the 'verses' extract~d above, impress on the parlies, B
to fear God, and ensure that their determination.is just and true.
21. The understanding of the 'verses' of the Quran, is imperative
in this case, because the' petitioner and those supporting the petitoner's
case contend inter alia, that 'talaq-e-biddat', is not in conformity with
the unambiguous edicts of the Quran, and therefore; cannot be considered C
as valid constituents of Muslim 'personal law'.
Part-4.
Legislation in India, in thdield of Muslim 'personal law':
-22. It would be relevant to record, that 'personal law' dealing D
with the affairs of those professing the Muslim religion, was also regulated
by custom or u,~~_ge. It was also regulated by 'Shariat' - the Muslim
'personal law'. The status of Muslim women under customs and usages
adopted by Muslims, were considered to be oppressive towards women.
Prior, to the independence of India, Muslim women organisations _ E
condemned customary law, as it adversely affected their rights, under
the 'Shariat'. Muslim women claimed, that the Muslim '_personal law'
be made applicable to them: It is therefore, tha_t the Muslim Personal
Law (Sharait) Application Act,, 1937 {hereinafter referred to, as the Shariat
Act), was passed. It is essential to understand, the background which
resulted in the enactment of the Shariat Act. The same is recorded in F
the statement of objects and reasons,_ which is reproduced below:
"For several years past it has been the cherished desire of the
Muslims of British India that Customary Law should in no case
take the place of Muslim Personal Law. The matter has been
repeatedly agitated in the press as well as on the platform. The . G
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind. the greatest Moslem religious body has
supported the demand and invited the attention of all concerned
to the urgent necessitv of introducing a measure to this effect.
Customary Law is a misnomer inasmuch as it has ncit any sound
basis to stand upon and is very much liable to frequent changes H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A and cannot be expected to attain at any time in the futLITe that
certainty and definiteness which must be the characteristic of all
laws. The status of Muslim women under the so-called Customary
Law is simuly disgraceful. All the Muslim Women Organisations
have therefore condemned the Customan:: Law as it adversely
affects their rights. They demand that the Muslim Personal Law
B
(Shariat) should be made am;1licable to them. The introduction of
Muslim Personal Law will automatically raise them to the 12osition
to which they are naturally entitled. In addition to this present
measure, if enacted, would have very salutary effect on society
because it would ensure certainty and definiteness in the mutual
c rights and obligations of the public. Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) exists in the form of a veritable code and is too well
known to admit of any doubt or to entail any great labour in the
shape ofresearch, which is the chief feature of Customary Law."
23. Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Shariat Act are relevant and are
• D extracted hereunder:
"2 Application of personal law to Muslims.- Notwithstanding any
customs or usage to the contrary, in all guestions (save questions
relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special
property of females, including personal property inherited or
E obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal
.Law, marriage, dissolution·ofmarriage, inch\ding talag, ila, zihar,
, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship; gifts,
trusts and 'trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and
charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments)
the rule of deCision in cases where the 12arties are Muslims shall
F be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."
3. Power to make a declaration.- (1) Any person who satisfies
the prescribed authority- •

(a) that he is a Muslim, and
G (b) that he is competent to contract within the meaning of
section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872 (9of1872), and
(c) that he is a resident of the teITitories to which this Act extends,
may by declaration in the prescribed form and filed before the >-
prescribed authority declare that he desires to obtaih the benefit
H

•
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 857
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!] •

of the provisions of this section, and thereafter the provisions of A
section 2 shall apply to the declarant and all his minor children
and their descendants as if in addition to the matters enumerated
therein adoption, wills and legacies were also specified.
(2) Where the prescribed authority refuses to accept a declaration
under sub-section (1 ), the person desiring to make the same may B
appeal to such officer as the Government may, by general or
special order, appoint in this behalf, and such officer may, ifhe is
satisfied that the appellant is entitled to make the declaration,
order the prescribed authority to accept the same.
xxx xxx xxx c
5. Dissolution of marriage by Court in certain circumstances.-
The District Judge may, on petition made by a Muslim married
woman, dissolve a marriage on any ground recognized by Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat)."
A close examination of Section 2, extracted above, leaves no room for D
any doubt, that custom and usage, as it existed amongst Muslims, were
sought to be expressly done away with, to the extent the same were
contrary to Muslim 'personal law'. Section 2 also mandated, that Muslim
'personal law' (Shariat) would be exclusively adopted as" ... the rule of
decision ... " in matters of intestate succession, special property of E
females, including all questions pertaining to " ... personal property
inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of
.- 'personal law', man'iage, dissolution of man-iage, including talaq, ila, zihar,
lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, gifts, trusts and trust
properties, and wakfs ... ". Section 3 added to the above list," ... adoption,
wills and legacies ... ", subject to the declaration expressed in Section 3. F
24. lt is relevant to highlight herein,. that under Section 5 9f the
Shariat Act provided, that a Muslim woman could seek dissolution of her
marriage, on the grounds recognized under the Muslim 'personal law'.
It would also be relevant to highlight, that Section 5 of the Shariat Act
was deleted, and replaced by the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, G
1939.
25. In the above context, it would be relevant to mention, that there
was no provision in the Hanafi Code, of Muslim law for a man-ied Muslim
woman, to seek dissolution of marriage, as of right. Accordingly, Hanafi
jurists had laid down, that in cases in which the application ofHanafi law H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A caused hardship, it was permissible to apply the principles of the Maliki,
Shafii or Hanbali law. This position was duly noticed in the introduction
to the 1939 A.ct, as well as, in the statement of its objects and reasons.
Be that as it may, the alternatives suggested by the Hanafi jurists were
not being applied by courts. Accordingly, in order to crystalise the grounds
of dissolution of marriage, by a Muslim woman, the 1939 Act, was
B
enacted. The statement of objects and reasons of the above enactment
is relevant, and is accordingly extracted hereunder:
'"'There is no proviso in the Hanafi Code of Muslim Law enabling
a married Muslim woman to obtain a decree from the Court
dissolving her marriage in case the husband neglects to maintain
c her, makes her life miserable by deserting or persistently
maltreating her or absconds leaving her unprovided for and under
certain other circumstances.
The absence of such a provision has entailed unspeakable misery
to innumerable Muslim women in British India. The Hanafi Jurists
D however, have clearly laid down that in cases in which the
application ofHanafi Law causes hardship, it is permissible to
apply the provisions of the "Maliki, Shafii or Hambali Law".
Acting on this principle the Ulemas have issued fatwas to the
effect that in cases enumerated in clause 3, Part A of this Bill
E (now see section 2 of the Act}, a married Muslim woman may
obtain a decree dissolving her marriage. A lucid exposition of
this principle can be found in the book called "Heelatun Najeza"
published by Maulana Ashraf Ali Sahib who has made an
exhaustive study of the provisions of Maliki Law which wider
F the circumstances prevailing in India may be applied to such
cases. This has been approved by a large number of Ulemas
who have put their seals of approval on the book.
As the Courts are sure to hesitate to apply the Maliki Law to the
case of a Muslim woman, legislation recognizing and enforcing
the above mentioned principle is called for in order to relieve the
G
sufferings of countless Muslim women.
One more point remains in connection with the dissolution of
marriages. It is this. The Courts in British India have held in a
number of cases that the apostasy of a married Muslim woman
ipso facto dissolves her marriage. This view has been repeatedly
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 859
' [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

challenged at the bar, but the Courts continue to stick to A
precedents created by rulings based on an erroneous view of
the Muslim Law. The Ulemas have issued Fatwas supporting
non-dissolution of marriage by reason of wife's apostasy, The
Musliin community has, again and again, given expression to its
supreme dissatisfaction with the view held by the Courts. Any B
, number of articles have been appearing in the press demanding
legislation to rectify the mistake committed by the Courts; henci:
clause 5 (now see section 4) is proposed to be incorporated in
this Bill. .
Thus, by this Bill the whole Law relating to dissolution ofmarriages C
is brought at one place and consolidated in the hope that it would
supply a very long felt want of the Muslim Community in India".
26. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provided, the
grounds on which a Muslim woman, could seek dissolution of marriage.
Section 2 of the enactment is reproduced below:
.' D
"2. Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.-A woman
married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for
the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following
grounds, namely:-
(i) that the where~bouts of the husband have not been known E
for a period of four years;
(ii) that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for
her maintenance for a period of two years;
(iii) that the husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a
period of seven years or upwards; F
(iv) that the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable
cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years;
(v) that the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage
and continues to be so;
G
(vi) that the husband has been insane for a period of two years
or is suffering from leprosy or virulent venereal disease;
(vii) that she, having been given in marriage b/her father or
other guardian before she attained the age of fifteen years,
repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years: H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Provided that the marriage has not been consummated;
(viii) that the husband treats her with crnelty, that is to say,-
(a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty
of conduct even if such conduct Cloes not amount to physical ill-
treatrnent, or
B
(b) associates with women of evil repute or leads an infamous
life, or
(c) attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or
(d) disposes of her property or prevents. her exercising her legal
c rights over it, or
(e) obstrncts her in the observance of her religious profession or
practice, or
(t) ifhe has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in
accordance with the injunctions of the Quran;
D
(ix) on any other ground which is recognised as valid for the
dissolution of marriages under Muslim law:
Provided that-
(a) no decree shall be passed on ground (iii) until the sentence
E has become final;
(b) a decree passed on ground (i) shall not take effect for a
period of six months from the date of such decree, and if the
husband appears either in person or through an authorised agent
within that period and satisfies the Court that he is prepared to '
F perform his conjugal duties, the Court shall set aside the said
decree; and
(c) before passing a decree on ground (v) the Court shall, on
application by the husband, make an order requiring the husband
to satisfy the Court within a period of one year from the date of
G such order that he has ceased to be impotent, and if the husband
so satisfies the Court within such period, no decree shall be
passed on the said ground."
27. We may record here, that the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages
Act, 1939, is irrelevant for the present controversy on account of the
H fact, that the issue in hand does not pertain to the dissolution of marriage
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 861
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

at the behest of a Muslim wife (but pertains to the dissolution of marriage, A
at the behest of a Muslim husband). The provisions of the instant
enactment are relevant, to understand the submissions advanced by
learned counsel, representing the petitioners, as also the respondents,
based on their individual perspectives,
Part-5. B
Abrogation of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world
over, ill Islamic, as well as. non-Islamic States:
28. 'Muslim Law in India and Abroad', by Tahir Mahmood and
Saif Mahmood (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
2012 edition), records the following position about the abrogation of the c
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' as a means of divorce, through statutory
enactments, the world over. The cmmtries which have abolished 'talaq-
e-biddat' have been divided into Arab States, Southeast Asian States,
and Subcontinental States. We have maintained the above classifications,
in order to establish their factual positions. Firstly, to demonsfrate.that D
the practice was prevalent across the globe in States having sizeable
Muslim populations. And secondly, that the practice has been done away
with, by way of legislation, in the countries referred to below.
A. Laws of Arab States
(i) Algeria: Is a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official E
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it has enacted the following legislation:
Code ofFamily Law 1984
Law No.84-11 of 1984 as amended in 2005
·F
"Article 49. Divorce cannot be established except by a
judgment of the court, preceded by an attempt at
reconciliation for a period not exceeding three months. '·'
(ii) Egypt: Is a secular State. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its
majority. On the issue in hand, it has enacted the following legislation: G
Law of Personal Status 1929
Law 25 of 1929 as amended by Law 100 of 1985
"Article 1. A Talaq pronounced under the effect of intoxication
or compulsion shall not be effective;
• H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Article 2. A conditional Talaq which is not meant to take effect
immediately shall have no effect if it is used as an inducement to
do some act or to abstain from it.
Article 3. A Talaq accompanied by a number, expressly or
impliedly, shall not be effective except as a single revocable
B divorce.
Article 4. Symbolic expressions oftalaq, i.e., words which may
or may not bear the implication of a divorce, shall not effect a
divorce unless the husband actually intended it."
(iii) Iraq: Is a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official
C religion. The majority oflraq's Muslims is Shias. On the issue in hand, it
has enacted the following legislation:
...
Code of Personal Status 1959
Law 188 of 1959 as amended by Law 90 of 1987
D "Article 35. No divorce shall be effective when pronounced by
the persons mentioned below:
(a) one who is intoxicated, insane or imbecile, tmder duress, or
not in his senses due to anger, sudden calamity, old age or sickness;
(b) a person in death-sickness or in a condition which in all
E probabilities is fatal and of which he actually dies, survived by
his wife."
xxx xxx xxx
Article 37. (1) Where a Talaq is coupled with a number, express
F or implied, not more than one divorce shall take place.
(2) If a woman is divorced thrice on three separate occasions
by her husband, no revocation or remarriage would be
permissible afterthat.
xxx xxx xxx
G
·Article 39. (1) When a person intends to divorce his wife. he
shall institute a suit in the Court of Personal Status requesting
that it be effected and that an order be issued therefor. If a
person cannot so approach the court, registration of the divorce
in the court during the period oflddat shall be binding on him.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 863
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(2) The certificate of marriage shall remain valid till it is cancelled A
. by the court."
(iv) Jordan: Is a secular State. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its
majority. On the issue in hand, it has enacted the following legislation:
Code of Personal Statusl976
B
Law 61of1976
"Article 88. (1) Talaq shall not be effective if pronounced under
intoxication, bewilderment, compulsion, mental disoroer,
depression or effect of sleep.
(2) 'Bewildered' is one who has lost senses due to' anger or C
provocation, etc., and cannot understand what he is saying!
xxx xxx xxx
Article 90. A divorce coupled with a number. expressly or
impliedly, as also a divorce repeated in the same sitting, will not D
take effect except as a single divorce.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 94. Every divorce shall be revocable except the final
third, one before consummation and one with consideration.
xxx xxx xxx E

Article 98. Where an irrevocable Talaq was pronounced once
or twice, renewal of marriage with the consent of parties is not
prohibited." ' ·
(v) Kuwait: Is a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be the official
F
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it hasthe following legislation in place:
Code of Personal Status 1984
Law 51of1984
"Article 102. Talaq may be effected by major and sane men G
acting by their free will and understanding the implications of
their action. Therefore Talaq shall not take effect if the husband
is mentally handicapped, imbecile, under coercion, mistake,
intoxication, fear or high anger affecting his speech and action.
xxx xxx xxx H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A A1ticle 109. If a Talag is pronounced with a number (two, three)
by words, signs or writing, only one Talaq shall take effect."
(vi) Lebanon: ls a secular State. Muslims constitute its majority, which
is estimated to be 54%. (27% Shia, and 27% Sunni). On the issue in
hand, it has enacted the following legislation:
B Family Rights Law 1962
Law of 16 July 1962
"Article 104. A divorce by a drunk person shall.have no effect.
Article 105. A divorce pronounced under coercion shall have no
c effect."
(vii) Libya: Is a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it has ~nacted the following legislation:
Family Law 1984
D
Law 10of1984 as amended by Law 15of1984
"Article 28. Divorce is termination of the marriage bond. No
divorce will become effective in any case except by a decree
of a competent court and subject to the provision of Article 30.
E Article 29. Divorce is of two kinds - revocable and irrevocable.
Revocable divorce does not terminate the marriage till the expiry
oflddat. Irrevocable divorce terminates the marriage forthwith.
Article 30. All divorces shall be revocable except a third-time
divorce, one before consummation of marriage, one for a
F consideration, and those specified in this law to be irrevocable.
Article 31. A divorce shall be effective only if pronounced in
clear words showing intention to dissolve the marriage.
Symbolic or metaphorical expression will not dissolve the
marriage.
G
Article 32. A divorce pronounced by a minor or insane person,
or if pronounced under coercion, or with no clear intention to
dissolve the marriage, shall have no legal effect.
Article 33. (1) A divorce meant to be effect on some action or
omission of the wife shall have no legal effect.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 865
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(2) A divorce given with a view to binding the wife to an oath or A
restrain her from doing something shall have no legal effect.
(3) A divorce to which a nlimber is attached, by express words
or a gesture, shall effect only a single revocable divorce, except
when it is pronounced for the third time.
xxx. ' xxx xxx B

Article 35. The marriage may be dissolved by mutual consent of
the parties. Such a divorce must be registered with the court. If
the parties cannot agree on the terms of such a divorce, they
shall approach the court and it will .appoint arbitrators to settle
the matter or reconcile them. ·C
xxx xxx xxx
Article 47. A divorce must be pronounced in a court and in the
presence of the other party or his or her representative. The
court shall before giving effect to a divorce exhaust all possibilities 0
of reconciliation."
(viii) Morocco: ls a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constituteits majority. On the issue
in hand, it has enacted the following legislation: .
. Code of Personal Status 2004 E
Law70.03 of2004
Article 79. Whoever divorces his wife by Talaq must petition the
court for permission to register it with the Public Notaries of the
area where the matrimonial home is situate, or where the wife
resides, or where the marriage took place. F

Article 80. The petition wiJI mention the identity of spouses, their
professions, addresses, number of children, if any, with their age,
· health condition and educational status .. It must be supported by
a copy of the marriage. agreement and a document stating the
liusband's social status and financial obl!gations. G

Article 81. The court shall summon the spouses and attempt
reconciliation. If the husband deliberately abstains. this will be
deemed to be \Vithdrawal of the petition. If the wife abstains,
the court will notify her that if she does not present herself the
H
.1

866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. I
petition may be decided in her absence. If the husband has
~
A
I
fraudulently given a wrong address for the wife, he may be
prosecuted at her instance.
Article 82. The court will hear the parties and their witnesses in
camera and take all possible steps to reconcile them. including
B appointment of arbitrators or a family reconciliation council, and
if there are children such efforts shall be exhausted within thirty
days. If reconciliation takes place, a report will be filed with the
court.
Article 83. If reconciliation attempts fail, the court shall fix an
c amount to be deposited by the husband in the court within thirty
days towards payment of the wife's post-divorce dues and
maintena1ice of children.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 90. No divorce is permissible for a person who is not in
D his senses or is under coercion or provocation.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Article 92. Multiple expressions of divorce, oral or written, shall
have the effect of a single divorce only.
E xxx xxx xxx
Article 123. Every divorce pronounced by the husband shall be
revocable, except a third-time divorce, divorce before
consummation of marriage, divorce by mutual consent, and
divorce by Khula or Talaq-e-Tafweez.
F (ix) Sudan: Is a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue in
hand, it has the following legislation in place:
Law on Talaq 1935

G Judicial Proclamation No.4of1935
"Article 1. A divorce uttered in a state of intoxication or under
duress shall be invalid and ineffective.
Article 2. A contingent divorce which is not meant to be effective

H
SHAYARA BANO v. · Ul'-llON OF INDIA AND OTHERS 867
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

immediately and is used as an inducement or threat shall have A
not effect.
Article 3. A formula of divorce coupled with a number. expressly
or impliedly. shall effect only one divorce.
Article 4. Metaphorical expressions used for a divorce shall have B
the effect of dissolving the marriage only if the husband actually
meant a divorce."
(x) Syria: Is a secular State. Muslims of the Swmi sect constitute its
majority. On the issue in hand~ it has enacted the following legislation:
Code of Personal Status '1953 c
Law 59of1953 as amended by Law 34of1975
"Article 89. No divorce shall take place when the man is drunk,
out of his senses, or under duress. A person is out of his senses
when due to anger, etc. he does not appreciate what he says.
D
Article 90. A conditional divorce shall have no effect ifnot actually
intended and used only as an inducement to do or abstain from -
doing something or as an oatli or persuasion.
If
l xxx xxx xxx
Article 92. If a divorce is coupled with a number. expressly or E
· impliedly, not more than one divorce shall take place.
xxx xxx
Article 94. Every divorce shall be revocable except a third-time
divorce, one before consummation, a divorce with a consideration,
and a divorce stated in this Code to be irrevocable. F
xxx .XXX xxx
Article 111. Where a person divorces his wife the court may, if
satisfied that he has arbitrarily done so without any reasonable
cause and that as a result of the divorce the wife shall suffer G
damage and become destitute, give a decision, with due regard
to the husband's financial condition and the amount of wife's
,. suffering, that he should pay her compensation not exceeding
three years' maintenance, in addition to maintenance payable
during the period oflddat. It may be directed to be paid either in
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A a lump sum or in instalments as the circumstances of a case may ·
reqmre.
(xi) Tunisia: ls a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be its official
religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it has enacted the following legislation:
B Code of Personal Status 1956
·Law 13~8of1956 as amended by Law 7of1981
"Article 31.( 1) A decree of divorce shall be given: (i) with the
mutual consent of the parties; or (ii) at the instance of either
c party on the ground of injury; or (iii) if the husband insists on
divorce or the wife demands it. The party causing material or
mental injury by the fact of divorce under clauses {ii) and (iii)
shall be directed to indemnify the aggrieved spouse.
(2) As regards the woman to be indemnified for material injury
in terms of money, the same shall be paid to her after the expiry
D
oflddat and may be in the fonn ofretention of the matrimonial
home. This indemnity will be subject to revision, increase or
decrease in accordance with the changes in the circumstances
of the divorced wife until she is alive or until she changes her
marital status by marrying again. If the fonner husband dies, this
E indemnity will be a charge on his estate and will have to be met
by his heirs if they consent to it and will be decided by the court
if they· disagree. They may pay her in a lump sum within one
year from the fonner husband's death the indemnity claimable
by her.
Article 32 (I) No divorce shall be decreed except after the court
has made an overall inquiry into the causes of rift and failed to
effect reconciliation.
(2) Where no reconciliation is possible the court shall provide,
even if not asked to, for all important matters relating to the
G residence of the spouses, maintenance and custody of children
and meeting the children, except when the parties specifically
agree to forgo all or any of these rights. The court shall fix the
maintenance on the basis of all those facts which it comes to
know while attempting reconciliation. All important matters shall
'H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 869
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJi]

be provided for in the decree, which shall be non-appeal able but · A
can be reviewed for making additional provisions.
(3) The court of first instance shall pass orders in the matters of
. divorce and all concerning matters including the compensation
. money to which the divorced wife may be entitled after the expiry
of Iddat. The portions of the decree relating to custody, B
maintenance, compensation, residence and right to visit children
shall be executed immediately."
. (xii) United Arab Emirates: ls a theocratic State, as the Federal
Constitution declares Islam to be the official religion. The Constitution
also provides for freedom of religion, in accordance with established c
customs. Muslims of the Shia sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it has the following legislation in place:
Law of Personal Status 2005
Federal LawNo.28 of2005
D
"Article 140(1). If a husband divorces his wife after.
consummation of a valid marriage by .his unilateral action and-
without any move for divorce from her side, she will be entitled
to compensation besides maintenance for Iddat. The amount of
compensation will be decided with due regard to the means of
· the husband and the hardship suffered _by the wife, but it shall E
not exceed the amount of one year's maintenance payable in
law to a woman of her status.
.c

(2) The Kazi may decree the compensation, io be paid·as a lump
sum or in instalments, according to the husband's ability to pay."
(xiii) Yemen: ls a theocratic State, which declares Islam to be the official F
·. religion. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the issue
in hand, it has the following legislation in place:
Decree on Personal Status 1992
'l
Decree 20 of 1992 G
"Article 6 LA divorce shall not be effective if pronounced by a
man who is drunk, or has lost his senses, or has n~ power of
I
..; discernment, if this is shown by his condition and action.
xxx ,.
xxx xxx H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Article 64. A divorce to which a number is attached, whatever
be the number, will effect only a single revocable divorce.
Article 65. The words saying that ifthe wife did or failed to do
something she will stand divorced will not effect a divorce.
Article 66. The words that if an oath or vow is broken it will
B effect a divorce will not dissolve the marriage even if the said
oath or vow is broken.
Article 67. A divorce can be revoked by the husband during the
Iddat period. After the expiry of Iddat, a direct remarriage
between them will be lawful.
c
xxx xxx xxx
Article 71. If a man arbitrarily divorces his wife without any
reasonable ground and it causes· hardship to her, the court may
grant her compensation payable by the husband not exceeding
D maintenance for one year in accordance with her status. The
court may decide if the compensation will be paid as a lump sum
or in instalments."
B. Laws of Southeast Asian States
(i) Indonesia: The Constitution oflndonesia guarantees freedom of religion
E among Indonesians. However, the Government recognizes only six official
religions - Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and
Confucianism. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority. On the
issue in hand, it has the following legislation in place:
(a) Law of Marriage 1974
F Law 1 ofl974
"Article 38. A divorce shall be effected only in the court and the
court shall not permit a divorce before attempting reconciliation
betweenthe parties. Divorce shall be permissible only for
sufficient reasons indicating breakdovm of marriage.
G
xxx xxx xxx
Article 41. In the event of a divorce both the parents shall
continue to be responsible for the maintenance of their children.
As regards custody of children, in case of a dispute between
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 871
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ1] .
. . .
themthe court shall take a decision. Expenses of maintenance A
·and education shall be primarily the father's liability, but ifhe is
unable to discharge this liability the court may transfer it to the
mother. The court may also direct the former husband to pay
alimony to the divorced wife."
(b)MarriageRegulations 1975 B
Regul;ition 9of1975
"Article 14. A man married under Islamic law wanting to divorce
his wife shall by a letter notify his intention to the District Court
seeking proceedings for that purpose.
c
Article 15: On receiving a letter the court shall, within thirty .
days, summon the parties and gather from them all relevant facts.
Article 16. If the court is satisfied of the existence of any of the
grounds mentioned in Article 19 below and is convinced that no
reconciliation between the parties is possible it will allow a D
divorce.
Article 17. Immediately after allowing a divorce as laid down in .
Article 16 above the court shall issue a certificate of divorce and
send it to the Registrar for registration of the divorce.
xxx xxx xxx E
"'Article 19. A divorce ri-tay be allo;wed on the petition of either
. party if the other party:
(a) has committed adultery or become addict to alcohol, drugs,
gambling or another serious vice; ·
F
(b) has deserted the aggrieved party for two years or more without
any legal ground and against the said party's will;.·.
(c) has been imprisoned for at least five years;
(d) has tre~ted the ag~rieved party with cmelty of an injurious
0

nature; ·G
(e) has been suffering from a physical deformity affecting
conjugal duties, or whete relations between the spouses have
become too much strai~~d making r~conciliation impossible.'.' . "..

H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (ii) Malaysia: Under the Constitution of Malaysia, Islam is the official
religion of the country, but other religions are permitted to be practiced
in peace and harmony. Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute its majority.
On the issue in hand, it has the following legislation in place:
Islamic Family Law Act 1984
B Act 304of1984
"Article 47. (1) A husband or a wife who desires a divorce shall
present an application for divorce to the court in the prescribed
form accompanied by a statutory declaration containing (a)
particulars of the marriage and the name, ages and sex of the
c children, if any, of the marriage; (b) particulars of the facts giving
the court jurisdiction under Section 45; (c) particulars of any
previous matrimonial proceedings between the parties, including
the place of the proceedings; (d) a statement as to the reasons
for desiring divorce; (e) a statement as to whether any, and if so,
D what steps have been taken to effect reconciliation; (t) the terms
of any agreement regarding maintenance and habitation of the
wife and the children of the marriage, if any, and the division of
any assets acquired through the joint effort of the parties, if any,
or where no such agreement has been reached, the applicant's
proposals regarding those matters; and (g) particulars of the order
E sought.
(2) Upon receiving an application for divorce, the court shall
cause summons to be served on the other party together with a
copy of the application and the statutory decla'.raiion made by
the applicant, and the summons shall direct the other party to
F appear before the court so as to enable it to inguire whether or
not the other party consents to the divorce.
(3) If the other party consents to the divorce and the com1 is
satisfied after due inquiry and investigation that the marriage
has irretrievably broken down, the court shall advise the husband
G to pronounce one Talaq before the court.
(4) The com1 shall record the fact of the pronouncement of one
Talag and shall send a certified copy of the record to the
appropriate Registrar and to the Chief Registrar for registration.
(5) Where the other party does not consent to the divorce or it
H.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 873
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

appears to the court that there is reasonable possibility of a A
reconciliation between the parties, the court shall as soon as
possible appoint a Conciliatory Committee consisting of a religious
officer as Chairman and two other persons, one to act for the
husband and the other for the wife, and refer the case to the
Committee.
B
(6) In appointing the two persons under sub-section (5) the court
shall, where possible, give preference to close relatives of the
parties having knowledge of the circumstances of the case.
(7) The court may give directions to the Conciliat01y Committee
. as to the conduct of the conciliation and it shall conduct it in c
accordance with such directions.
(8) If the Committee is unable to agree or if the court is not
satisfied with its conduct of the conciliation, the cotut may remove
the Committee and appoint another Committee in its place.
(9) The Committee shall endeavour to effect reconciliation within D
a period of six .months from the date of its being constituted or
such further period as may be allowed by the court.
(10) The Committee shall require the attendance of the parties
and shall give each of them an opportunity of being heard and
may hear such other persons and make such inquiries as it thinks E
fit and may, ifit considers it necessary, adjourn its proceedings
from time to time.
( 11) If the Conciliatory Committee is unable to effect
reconciliation and is unable to persuade the parties to resume
· their conjugal relationship, it shall issue a certificate to that effect F
and may append to the certificate such recommendations as it
thinks fit regarding maintenance and custody of the minor children
of the marriage, if any, regarding division of pro perry and other
matters related to the marriage.
(12) No advocate and solicitor shall appear or act for any party G
in any proceeding before a Conciliatory Committee and no party
shall be represented by any person other than a member of his
or her family without the leave of the Conciliatory Committee.
(13) Where the Committee reports to the court that reconciliation
has been effected and the parties have resumed their conjugal H
' 874 Sl,IPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A relationship, the court shall dismiss the application for divorce.
(14) Where the Committee submits to the-court a certificate that
it is unable to effect reconciliation and to persuade the parties to
resume the conjugal relationship, the court shall advise the husband
to pronounce one Talaq before the court, and where the court is,
B unable to procure the presence of the husband before the court
to pronounce one Talaq, or where the husband refuses to
pronounce one Talaq, the court shall refer the case to the Hakams
[arbitrators] for action according to section48.
(15) The requirement of sub-section (5) as to reference to a
c Conciliatory Committee shall not apply in any case (a) where
the applicant alleges that he or she has been deserted by an does
not know the whereabouts of the other party; (b) where the
other party is residing outside West Malaysia and it is unlikely
that he or she will be within the jurisdiction of the court within six
months after the date of the application; (c) where the other
D party is imprisoned for a term of three years or more; (d) where
the applicant alleges that the other party is suffering from incurable
mental illness; or (e) where the cowi is satisfied that there are
exceptional circumstances which make reference to a
Conciliatory Committee impracticable.
0
E (16) Save as provided in sub-section(! 7), a Ialaq pronounced
by the husband or an order made by the court shall not be
effective until the expiry of the Iddat.
(17) If the wife is pregnant at the time the Talaq is pronounced
· or the order is made, the Ta lag or the order shall not be effective
F yntil the pregnancy ends."
(iii) Philippines: ls a secular State. Christians constitute its majority. On
the issue in hand, it has the following legislation in place:
Code of Muslim Personal Law 1977
G Decree No. I 083 of 1977
"Article 46. (1) A divorce by Talaq may be effected by the
husband in a single repudiation of his wife during her Tuhr [non-
menstrual period] within which he has totally abstained from
carnal relations with her.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 875
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(2) Any number of repudiations made during one Tuhr [non- A
menstrual period] shall constitute only one repudiation and shall
become irrevocable after the expiration of the prescribed Iddat.
(3) A husband who repudiates his wife, either for the first or
second time, shall have the right to take her back within the
Iddat period by resumption of cohabitation without need of a B
new contract of marriage. Should he fail to do so, the repudiation
shall become irrevocable.
xxx xxx xxx
)

Article 85. Within seven days after the revocation of a divorce
the husband shall, with the wife's consent, send a statement thereof C
to the Circuit Registrar in whose records the divorce was
previously entered. '
xxx xxx
Article 161. (1) A Muslim male who has pronounced a Talaq
D
shall, without delay, file with the Clerk of the Sharia Circuit Court
of the place where his family resides a written notice of such
fact and the circumstances attending thereto, after having served
a copy to the wife concerned. The Talaq pronounced shall not
become irrevocable until after the expiration of the prescribed
Iddat. E
(2) Within seven days from receipt of notice the Clerk of the
Court shall require each of the parties to nominate a
representative. The representatives. shall be appointed by the
court to constitute, with the Clerk of the Court as Chairman, an
Agama [religious scholars] Arbitration Council which shall try F
and submit to the court a report on the result of arbitration on the
basis of which. and such other evidence as may be allowed, the
court will pass an order.
(3) The provisions of this Article will be observed if the wife
exercises right to Talaqce-Tafweez. G
xxx xxx xxx
Article 183; A person who fails to comply with the requirements
of Article 85, 161and162 of this Code shall be penalized by

H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A imprisonment or a fine of two hundred to two thousand Pesos,
or both."
C. Laws of Sub-continental States
(i) Pakistan & Bangladesh: Are both theocratic States, wherein Islam is
the official religion. In both countries Muslims of the Sunni sect constitute
B the majority. On the issue in hand, it has the following legislation in
place:
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961
Ordinance VIII of 1961 amended in Bangladesh by Ordinance
c 114of1985
(Bangladesh changes noted below relevant provisions)
"Section 7. (1) Any man who wishes to divorce his wife shall,
as soon as may be after the pronouncement ofTalag in any form
whatsoever, give the Chairman a notice in writing of his having
D done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provision of sub-section (1) shall
be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees, or with both.
E
[Bangladesh: ten thousand taka]
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (5), a Talaq unless revoked·
earlier, expressly or otherwise, shall not be effective until the
expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under
subsection ( l) is delivered to the Chairman.
F
(4) Within thirty days of the receipt of notice under sub-section
(1) the Chairman shall constitute an Arbitration Council for the
pur:pose of bringing about reconciliation between the parties, and
the Arbitration council shall take all steps necessary to bring
about such reconciliation.
G
(5) If the wife be pregnant at the time Talag is pronounced,
Talaq shall not be effective until the period mentioned in sub-
section (3) or of pregnancy, whichever is later, ends.
(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has been
terminated byTalaq effective under this section from re-marrying
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 877
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
,
~

the same husband without any intervening marriage with a third A
. person, unless such termination is for the third time so effective."
(ii) Sri Lanka: Is a secular State. Buddhists constitute its majority.
On the issue in hand,. it has the following legislation in place:
Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act 1951
B
Act 6 of 1951 as amended by Act 40 of 2006
"Section 17 (4) Save as otherwise hereinafter expressly provided,
every marriage contracted between Muslims after the
commencement of this Act shall be registered, as hereinafter
provided, immediately upon the conclusion of the Nikah ceremony c
connected therewith.
(5) In the case of each such marriage, the duty of causing it to
be registered is hereby imposed upon the following persons
concerned in the marriage; (a) the bridegroom, (b) the guardian
of the bride, and (c) the person who conducted the Nikah D
. ceremony connected with the marriage.
Section 27. Where a husband desires to divorce his wife the
procedure laid down in Schedule II shall be followed."
')·
(2) Where a wife desires to effect a divorce from her husband
on any ground not referred to in sub-section (1), being a divorce E
of any description permitted to a wife by the Muslim law governing
the sect to which the parties belong, the procedure laid down in
the Schedule Ill shall be followed so far as the nature of the
divorce claimed in each case renders it possible or necessary to
follow that procedure.
F
29. 'Talaq-e-biddat' is effective, the very moment it is pronounced.
It is irrevocable when it is pronounced.
Part-6;
Judicial pronouncements, on the subject of 'talag-e-biddat':
G
30. Rashid Ahmad v. Anisa Khatun 1•
(i) The facts: The primary issue that came to be adjudicated in the above
case, pertained to the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' pronounced by Ghiyas-
ud-din, a Sunni Mohomedan of the Hanafi school, to his wife Anisa
I AIR 1932 PC 25 H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Khatun -respondent no. I. The marriage of the respondent with Ghiyas-
ud-din had taken place on 28.08.1905. Ghiyas-ud-din divorced her on or
abqut 13. 09 .1905. Ghiyas-ud-din pronounced triple talaq, in the presence
of witnesses, though in the absence of his wife - Anisa Khatun.
Respondent no. I - Anisa Khatun received Rs. I ,000 in payment of
'dower' on the same day, which was confirmed by a registered receipt.
B
Thereafter, Ghiyas-ud-din executed a 'talaqnama' (decree of divorce)
dated l 7 .09.1905, which narrates the divorce. The 'talaqnama' is alleged
to have been given to Anisa Khatun - respondent no. I.
(ii) The challenge: Anisa Khatun - respondent no.I, challenged the
validity of the divorce, firstly, for the reason, that she was not present at
C the time of pronouncement of divorce. And secondly, that even after
the aforestated pronouncement, cohabitation had continued and subsisted
0 for a further period of fifteen years, i.e., till the death of Ghiyas-ud-din.
In the interregnun1, five children were born to Ghiyas-ud-din and Anisa
Khatun. According to Anisa Khatun, Ghiyas-ud-din continued to treat
D Anisa Khatun - respondent no.I, as his wife, and the children born to
her, as his legitimate children. It was also the case of respondent no. I,
thil;t the payment of Rs.1,000, was a payment of prompt dower, and as
such, not payment in continuation of the 'talaq-e-biddat', pronounced by
Ghiyas-ud-din.
E (iii) The consideration: While considering the validity of the 'talaq-e-
biddat' pronounced on 13.09.1905, and the legitimacy of the children
born to Anisa Khatun, the Privy Council held as under:
"I5. Their Lordships·are of opinion that the pronouncement of
the triple talak by Ghiyas-ud-din constituted an immediately
F effective divorce, and, while they are satisfied that the High Court
were not justified in such a conclusion on the evidence in the
present case, they are of opinion that the validity and effectiveness
of the divorce would not be affected by Ghiyas-ud-din's mental
intention that it should not be a genuine divorce, as such a view
is contrary to all authority. A talak actually pronounced under
G compulsion or in jest is valid and effective: Baillie's Digest, 2nd
edn., p. 208;Ameer Ali'sMohammedan Law, 3rdedn., vol. ii, p.
518; Hamilton's Hedaya, vol. i, p. 2 I I.
I 6. The respondents sought to found on the admitted fact that
for about fifteen years after the divorce Ghiyas-ud-din treated
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 879
' [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Anisa Fatima as his wife and his children as legitimate. and on A
certain admissions of their status said to have been made by
appellant No. 1 and respondent pro forma No. 10, who are
brothers of Ghiyas-ud-din. but once the divorce is held proved
such facts could not undo its effect or confer such a status on
.the respondents.
B
17. While admitting that, upon divorce by the triple talak, Ghiyas~
ud-din could not lawfully remarry Anisa Fatima until she had
married another and the latter had divorced her or died, the
respondents maintained that the acknowledgment of their
legitimacy by Ghiyas-ud-din, subsequent to the divorce, raised C
the presumption that Anisa Fatima had in the interval married
another, who had died or divorced her, and that Ghiyas-ud-din
had married her again, and that it was for the appellants to displace
that presumption. In support of this contention, they founded on
· certain dicta in the judgment of this Board in Habibur Rahman
Chowdhury v. Altaf Ali Chowdhury L.R.48 I.A: 114. Their D
Lordships find it difficult to regard this contention as a serious
. one, for these dicta directly negative it. The passage relied on,
which related to indirect proof of Mahomedan marriage by
. acknowledgment of a son as a legitimate son is as follows: "It
must not be impossible upon the face of it, i.e., it must not be
made when the ages are such that if'is impossible in nature for E
the acknowledgor to be the father of the ac~owledgee, or when
the mother spoken to in an acknowledgment, being the wife of
another, or within prohibited degrees ofthe acknowledgor, it would
Ci be apparent that the issue would be the issue of adultery or incest.
The acknowledgment may be repudiated by the acknowledgee. f
But if none of these objections occur, then the acknowledgment
has more than evidential value. It raises _a prestlmption of ·
marriage - a presumption which may be taken advantage of
either by a wife-claimant or a son-claimant. Bei~g, however, a
presumption of fact, and not juris et de jure, it is, like every other
presumption of fact capable of being set aside by contrary proof. G
18. The legal bar to re-marriage created by the divorce in the
present case would equally prevent the raising of the presumption.
If the respondents had proved the removal of that bar by proving .
· the marriage of Anisa Fatima to another after the divorce and
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A the death of the latter or his divorce of her prior to the birth of
the children and their acknowledgment as legitimate, the
respondents might then have had the benefit of the presumption,
but not otherwise.
19. Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion that the appeal
B should be allowed, that the decree of the High Court should be
reversed, and that the decree of the Subordinate Judge should
be restored, the appellants to have the costs of his,appeal and
their costs in the High Court. Their Lordships \Viii humbly
advise His Majesty accordingly."
C (iv) The conclusion: The Privy Council, upheld as valid, 'talaq-e-biddat' -
triple talaq, pronounced by the husband, in the absence and without the
knowledge of the wife, even though the husband and wife continued to
cohabit for 15 long years thereafter, wherefrom 5 offsprings were born
~fu~ .
31. Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begµm 2• (Single Judge judgment,
D authored by Baharul Islam, J., as he then was).
(i) The facts: The respondent - Anwara Begum had petitioned for
maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Her contention was; that she had lived with her husband for about 9
months, after her marriage. During that 'p1;riod, her marriage \Vas
E consummated~ Anwara Begum alleged, that after the above 'period,
her husband began to torture her, and :even ·ustid t'o heather: It ~as
therefore, that she was ~ompelled ib 'leave liis ~.ompany, an" start
living with her father, who was a <la/labourer. Maintenance was
duly granted, by the First Class Magistrate, Tinsukia. Her husband,
F the petitioner - Jiauddin Ahmed, contested the respondent's claim
for maintenance, before the Gauhati High Court, on the ground that
he had divorced her, by pronouncing divorce by adopting the procedure
of 'talaq~e-biddat'.
(iii) The challenge: It is in the above circumstances, that the validity
G of 'talaq-e-biddat'., and the wife'.s entitlement to U}aintenaqce came
to be considered by the •Guahati ·High Gourt,;which . I
e;xamjned
~ '
the
validity of the ccmcept of 'tiµaq-e-b,iddat'. ,· '. ~· . . .._
(iv) The consideration; 'c~) The High c6urt placed reliance ori 'verses'
128 to 130, contained in 'section' 19, of 'sura' lV, and 'verses' 229 to
H '(1981) 1 Gau.LR. 358
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 881
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

232, contained in 'sections' 29 and 30 of 'sura' II, and thereupon, A
referred to the commentary on the above verses by scholars (Abdullah
Yusuf Ali and Maulana Mohammad Ali) and the views of jurists
(Ameer Ali and Fyzee), with pointed reference to 'talaq', which was
narrated as under:
"Islam tried to maintain the married state as far as possible, B
especially where children are concerned, but it is against the
restriction of the liberty of men and women in such vitally
important matters as love and family life. It will check hasty
action as far as possible and leave the door to reconciliation open
at many stages. Even after divorce a suggestion of reconciliation
is made, subject to certain precautions against thoughtless action. C
A period of waiting (Iddat) for three monthly courses is prescribed,
in order to see ifthe marriage conditionally dissolved is likely to
· result in issue. But this is not necessary where the divorced
woman is a virgin. It is definitely declared that women and men
shall have similar 1ights against each other.· D
Yusuf Ali has further observed:
"Where divorce for mutual incompatibility is allowed, there is
danger that the parties might act hastily, then repent, and again
wish to separate. To prevent such capricious action repeatedly,
a limitis prescribed. Two divorces (with a reconciliation between) E
are allowed. After that the parties must unitedly make up their
minds, either to dissolve their union permanently, or to live
honourable lives together in mutual love and for-bearance to 'hold
together on equitable terms, 'neither party worrying the other
nor grumbling nor evading the duties and responsibilities 9f F
marriage". ·
YusufAli proceeds:
"All the prohibitions and limits prescribed here are in the intere~ts
of good and honourable lives for both sides, and in the interests
of a clean and honourable social life, without public or private G
scandals ... "
* * * .*
"Two divorces followed by re-union are permissible; the third
time the divorce becomes irrevocable, until the woman marries
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A some other man and he divorces her. This is to set an almost
impossible condition. The lesson is: if a man loves a woman he
should not allow a sudden gust of temper or anger to induce him
to take hasty action ...
If the man takes back his wife after two divorces, he must do so
B only on equitable terms, i.e. he must not put pressure on the
woman to prejudice her rights in any way, and they must live
clean and honourable lives, respecting each other's
personalities ... "
The learned Commentator further observes :
c "The termination of a marriage bond is a most serious matter for
family and social life. An every lawful device is approved which
can equitably bring back those who have lived together, provided
only there is mutual love and they can live on honourable terms
with each other. If these conditions are fulfilled, it is no right for
D out-siders to prevent or hinder re-union. They may be swayed
byproperty or other considerations."
(b) The High Court also placed reliance on 'verse' 35 contained in
'section' 6, of 'sura' IV, and again referred to the commentary on the
above 'verse' (by Abdullah YusufAli), who had interpreted the same as
E under:
"An excellent plan for settling family disputes, without too much
publicity or mud-throwing, or resort to the chicaneries of the
law. The Latin countries recognise this plan in their legal system.
It is a pity that Muslims do not resort to it universally, as they
should. The arbiters from each family would know the
F
idiosyncrasies of both pai1ies, and would be able, with God's
help, effect areal reconciliation."
Maulana Mohammad Ali has commented on the above verse
thus:
G "This verse lays down the procedure to be adopted when a case
for divorce arises. It is not for the husband to put away his wife;
it is the business of the judge to decide the case. Nor should the
divorce case be made too public. The Judge is required to appoint
two arbi-trators, one belonging to the wife's family and the other
to the husband's. These two arbitrafors will find out the facts but
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 883
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CH]

their objective must be to effect a recOJ)Ci-liation between the A
parties. If all hopes ofreconciliation fail, a divorce is allowed.
·But the final decision rests with the judge who is legally entitled
· . to pronounce a divorce. Cases.were decided in accordance with .
the direc-tions contained in this verse in the early days of Islam." .
The same learned author commenting on the above verse (IV: B
35) in his the Religion oflslam has observed: ,.
"From what has been said above, it is clear that not only must
there be a good cause for divorce, but that all means to effect
. reconciliation must have been exhaus-ted before resort is had to
this extreme measure. The impression that a Muslim husband c
may put away his wife at his mere caprice, is a grave distortion
of the Islamic institution of divorce."
Fyzee denounces talaq as "absurd and unjust". Abdur Rahim
says:
"I may remark that the interpretation of the. law of divorce by D
the jurists, specially of the Hanafi School, is one flagrant instance
where because of literal adherence to mere words and a certain
tendency towards subtleties they have reached a result in direct
antagonism to the admitted policy of the law on the subject."
12. Mohammad Ali has observed:- E
"Divorce is thus discouraged:
'If you hate' them (i.e. your wives). it may be that you dislike a
thing while Allah has plac,ed abundant good in it." Remedies are
also suggested to avoid divorce so long as possible:
"And if you fear a breach between the two (i.e. the husband arid F
the wife), then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from
her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect
harmony between them.
It was due to such teachings of the Holy Quran that the Holy
Prophet declared divorce to be the most hateful of all things G
permitted.... The mentality of the Muslim is to face the difficulties
of the married life along with its comforts and to avoid disturbing
the disruption of the family relations as long as possible, turning
to divorce only as a last resort." The learned author has further .
observed:
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "The principle of divorce spoken of in the Holy Quran and which
in fact includes to a greater or less extent all causes, is the decision
no longer to live together as husband and wife. In fact, marriage
itself is nothing but an agreement to live together as husband and
wife and when either of the parties finds him or herselfunable to
agree to such a life, divorce must follow. It is not, of course,
B
meant that every disagreement between them would lead to
divorce; it is only the disagreement to live any more as husband
and wife ..!'
He then refers to the condition laid down in Sura IV verse 35.

c The learned author proceeds:
"The 'shiqaq' or breach of the marriage agreement may also
arise from the conduct of either party; for in-stance, if either of.
them misconducts himself or herself~ or either of them is
consistently cruel to the other, or, as may sometimes happen
there is incompatibility of temperament to such an extent that
D
they cannot live together in marital agreement.
The 'shiqaq' in these cases is more express, but still it will depend
upon the parties whether they can pull on or not. Divorce must
always follow when one of the parties finds it impossible to
continue the marriage agreement and is compelled to break it
E off.At first sight it may look like giving too much latitude to the
parties to allow them to end the marriage contract thus, eyen if
there is no reason except incompatibility of temperament, but
this much is certain that if there is such disagreement that the
husband and the wife cannot pull together, it is better for
F themselves, for their offspr-ing and for society in general that
they should be sepa-rated than that they should be compelled to
live toge-ther. No home is worth the name wherein instead of
peace there is wrangling; and marriage is meaningless if there is
no spark of love left between the hus~and and the wife. It is an
error to suppose that such lati-tude tends to destroy the stability
G of marriage, because marriage is entered into as a permanent
and sacred relation based on love between a man and a woman,
and divorce is only a remedy when marriage fails to fulfill its
object."
With regard to the husband's right of pronouncing divorce the
H learned author has found;
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 885
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"Though the Holy Quran speaks of the divorce being pronounced A
by the husband, yet a limitation is placed upon the exercise of .. ·
this right."
He then refers to the procedure laid down in Sura IV Verse 35
quoted above, and says :
"It will be seen that in all disputes between the hus-band and the B
wife, which it is feared will lead to a breach, two judges are to
be appointed from the· respec-tive people of the two parties~
These judges are required first to try to reconcile the parties to
each other, failing which divorce is to be effected .. Therefore,
though it is the husband who pronounces the divor\:e, he is as c
much bound by the decision of the judges, as is the wife. This
shows that the husband cannot repudiate the marriage at will.
The case must first be referred tO two judges and their decision
is binding.; ....The Holy Prophet is reported to have interfered
and disallowed a divorce pronounced by a husband, restoring
·the marital relations (Bu. 68: 2). It was no doubt matter of D
procedure, but it shows that the authority constituted by law has
the right to interfere in matters of divorce."
The learned author has further observed:
"Divorce may be given oraUy, or in writing, but it must take place E
( .
in the presence ofwitnesses."
(iv) The conclusion: Based on the Quranic verses referred to above, the
High Court concluded as under:
"13. A perusal of the Quranic verses quoted above and the
commentaries thereon· by· well-recognized Scholars of great · F · · ·
. eminence like Mahammad Ali and Yusuf Ali an:d .the
pronounce-ments of great jurists like AmeerAJi and Fyzee .
completely rule out the observation ofMacnaghten that "there is .
no occasion for any particular cause for divorce, and mere whim·
is sufficient", and the observation ofBatchelor, J. (ILR 30 Born. G
537) that "the whimsical and capricious divorce by the husband
is good in law, though bad in theology". These observations have
been based on the concept that women were chattal belonging -
to men, which the Holy Quran does not brook. Costello, J. In .59
Calcutta 833 has not, with respect, laid down the correct Jaw of
· talaq. In my view the correct law of talaq as ordained by the H
I
\·
I
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R. )
I

A Holy Quran is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be
preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and
the wife by two arbiters-one from the wife's family the other
from the husband's. If the attempts fail, talaq may be effected.
xxx xxx xxx
B 16. In the instant case the petitioner merely alleged in his written
statement before the Magistrate that he had pronounced talaq to
the opposite party; but he did not examine himself, nor has he
adduced any evidence worth the nan1e to prove 'talaq'. There is
no proof of talaq, or its registration. Regis-tration of marriage
c and divorce under the Assam Muslim Marriages and Divorces
Registration Act, 1935 is voluntary, and unilateral. Mere
registration of divorce (or marriage) even ifproved, will not render
valid divorce which is otherwise invalid under Muslim Law."
A perusal of the conclusion recorded by the High Court, through the
D above observations, leaves no room for any doubt, that the 'talaq-e-
biddat' pronounced by the husband without reasonable cause, and
without being preceded by attempts of reconciliation, and without
the involvement of arbitrators with due representation on behalf of
the husband and wife, would not lead to a valid divorce. The High
Court also concluded, that the petitioner- Jiauddin Ahmed, had mainly
E alleged that he had pronounced talaq, but had not established the
factum of divorce by adducing any cogent evidence. Having
concluded, that the marriage between the parties was subsisting, the
High Court upheld the order awarding maintenance to the wife -
Anwara Begum.
F 32. Must. Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khaligue Laskar3, (Division
Bench judgment, authored by Baham! Islam. CJ., as he then was).
(i) The facts: Rukia Khatun was married to Abdul Khalique Laskar.
The couple lived together for about 3 months, after their marriage.
During that period, the marriage was consummated. Rukia Khatun
G alleged, that after the above period, her husband abandoned and
neglected her. She was allegedly not provided with any maintenance,
and as such, had been living in penury, for a period of about 3 months,
before she moved an application for grant of maintenance. The
petitioner's application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of
H '(1981) I Gau. L.R. 375
SHA.YARA BANO v. tJNIQN. OF INDIA AND OTHERS 887
[JAGDISH SINGHKI-iEHAR, CJI]
. ' . ~

. the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected by the Sub-Divisional A
Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. She challenged the order rejecting
her claim of maintenance, before the Gauhati High Court. The
respondent-husband -Abdul Khalique Laskar, contested the claim
for maintenance by asserting, that even though he had married the
petitioner, but he had divorced her on 12.4. i 972 by way of 'talaq-e-
B
biddat', and had thereafter even executed a tal.aknama. The,,husband
also asserted, that he had paid dower to the petitioner. The claim of
the petitioner-wife for maintenance was declined on the ground, that
she had been divorced by the respondent-husband.
{ii) The challenge: It is in the above circumstances, that the validity C
of the divorce pronounced by the responderit-husband, by way of
'talaq-e-biddat', and the wife's entitlement to maintenance, came up
for consideration.
· · {iii) The consideration: The Gauhati High Court recorded the following
observations in respect of the validity of 'talaq' pronounced by the
respondent~husband, on 12.4.1972. ·D
"7. The first point to be decided, therefore, is whether the opposite
party divorced the Petitioner. The equivalent of the word 'divorce'
is 'talaq' in Muslim Law. What is valid 'talaq' in Muslim law
was considered by one of us (Baharul Islam, J. as he then was)
sitting singly in Criminal Revision No. 199/77 (supra). The word E
'talaq' carri.es the literal significance of'freeing' or 'the undoing
of knot'. 'Talaq' means divorce of a woman by her husband.
Under the Muslim law marriage is a Civil contract. Yet the rights
and responsibilities consequent upon itare of such importance to
ii
the welfare of the society that a high degree of sanctity is attached F ..
to it. But in spite of the sacredness ofthe character of the :
marriagetic, Islam recognizes the necessity in exceptional ·
circumstances of keeping the way open for its dissolution.
There has been a goo'd deal of misconception of the institution of
'talaq' under the Muslim law. From the Holy Qiiran and: the ... G ... ·
· Hadis, it appears that though divorce was permitted, yet theright
could be exercised only under exceptional circumstances: The
Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "Never did Allah allow
anything more hateful to Him than "divorce." According fo a
. report of Ibn Umilr, the Prophet said: "With Allah the most.·
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A detestable of all things permitted is divorce". (See the Religion
. of Islam by Maulana Muhammed Ali at page 671 ).
In the cafe of Ahmed Kasim Molla v. Khatun Bibi reported
in ILR Cal 833, which has so long been regarded as a leading
case 011 the law of divorce, Justice Costello held:
B "Upon that point (divorce), there are a number of authorities and
I have carefully considered this point as dealt with in the very
early authorities to see whether I am in agreement with the mere
recent decisions of the Courts. I regret that I have to come to
the conclusion that at the law stands at present, any Mohamedan
c may divorce his wife at his mere whim and caprice."
Following Macnaghten, J. who held: "there is no occasion for
any particular cause for divorce, and mere whim is sufficient,"
and Batchelor, J, in case ofSarabai v. Babiabai (ILR 30 Bombay
537) Costello, J. held:-
D "It is good in law, though bad in theology."
Ameer Ali, in his Treatise on Mahomedan Law has observed:
"The Prophet pronounced talaq to be a most destable thing before
the Almighty God of all permitted things.
E lf'talaq' is given without any reason it is stupidity and ingratitude
to God."
The learned Author in the same book has also observed
"The author of the Multeka (Ibrohim Halebi) is more concise.
He says-'The law gives to the man primarily the power of
F dissolving the marriage, ifthe wife, by her indocility or her bad
character, renders the married life unhappy; but in the absence ·
of serious reasons, no Musalrnan can justify a divorce either in
the eyes of the religion or the law. Ifhe abandons his wife or put
her away from simpfe caprice, he draws, upon himself the divine
G anger, for 'the curse of God', said the Prophet, 'rests on him
who repudiates his wife capriciously."
In ILR Madras 22, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court,
consisting of Munro and Abdur Rahim, JJ ., held:
"No doubt an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of the right to
H
/

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 889
'
[JAGDISH'SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

. dissolve the marriage is strongly condemned in the Quran and in A
the reported S!!ying of the Prophet (Hadith) and is treated as a
spiritual offence. But the impropriety of the husband's conduct
would in rio way affect the legal validity of a divorce duly effected
by the husband."
What Munro and Abdur Rahmim, JJ. in ILR 30 Madras B
22 precisely held was that impropriety of the husband's conduct
would in no way affect the legal validity ofa divorce duly effected
by the husband. The emphasis was that a talaq would be valid
only if it is effected in accordance with the Muslim Law.
In ILR 5, Rangoon 18, their Lordships of the Privy Council c ·
observed:
"According to that law (the Muslim Law), a husband can effect
a divorce whenever he desires."
But the Privy Council has not said that the divorce need not be
duly effected or that procedure enjoined by the Quran need not D
be followed.
8. It is needless to say that Holy Quran is the ·primary source
· and is the weightiest authority on any subject under the Muslim
Law. The Single Judge in Criminal Revision No. 199/77 in his
judgment quoted the relevant verses of the Quran, to deal with E
divorce. We need not refer to all the Verses. It will be sufficient
. if we· refer to only one of them, whi,ch is Sura IV verse 35. It
reads:
"Ifye fear a breach
Between them twain, F
Appoint two·arbiters
One from his family,
· And the other from hers;
If they wish for peace,
o·
God will cause
Their reco~ciliation:
For God hath full knowledge,
And is acquainted
With all things." H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A Fromthe verse quoted above, it appears that there is a condition
precedent which must be complied with before the talaq is
effected. The condition precedent ifwhen the relationship between
the husband and the wife is strained and the husband intends to
give 'talaq' to his wife he must chose an arbiter from his side
and the wife an arbiter from her side, and the arbiters must attempt
B
· at reconciliation, with a time gap so that the passions of the parties
may call down and reconciliation may be possible. If ultimately
conciliation is not possible, the husband will be entitled to give
'talaq' .. The 'talaq' mdst be for good cause and must not be at
the mere desire, sweet will, whim and caprice of the husband. It
c must not be secret.
Maulana Mohammad Ali, an eminent Muslim jurist, in his Religion
of Islam, after referring to, and considering, the relevant verses
on the subject has observed:
From what has been said above, it is clear that not only mus~
D there be a good cause for divorce, but that all means to effect
re<:onciliation must have been exhausted before resort is had to
· this extreme measure. The impression that a Muslim husband
may put away his wife at his mere caprice, is a grave distortion
of the Islamic institution of divorce."
E The learned Jurist also has observed:
"Divorce must always follow when one of the parties finds it
. impossible to continue the marriage agreement and is compelled
to break it off."
9. Costello, J. in ILR 59 Calcutta 833 (supra) considered the
F
judgments of Munro and Abdur Rahim, JJ. in ILR 33 Mad.
22 (supra) and of the Privy Council in JLRS, Rangoon 18, (supra)
but he preferred the opinions ofMachaghten and Batchalor, JJ.
in ILR 30 Bombay 537 (supra). The reason perhaps is, as
observed by Krishna Ayer, J. (now of the Supreme Court) in the
G case of A. Yusuf Rowther v. Sowramma, reported in AIR 1971
Kerala261: ·
"Marginal distortions are inevitable when the Judicial Committee
in Downing Street has to interpret Manu and Muhammad of
India and Arabia. The soul of a Culture law is largely the
H ·formalised and enforceable expression of a community's culture
,_ .

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 891
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

norms-cannot be fully understood by alien minds." A
10. Krishna Ayer, J., in AIR 1971Kerala261 (supra) has further
observed:
"The view that the Muslim husband enjoys an arbitrary, unilateral
power to inflict instant divorce does not accord with Islamic
injunctions ... Indeed, a deeper study of the subject disclosed a B
· surprisingly rational, realistic and modem law of divorce......... "
The learned Judge has further observed:
"It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male enjoys; under the
Quranic law, Unbridled Authority to liquidate the marriage. The c
whole Quran expressly forbids a man to seek pretexts for
divorcing his wife, so long as she remains faithful and obedient
to him, 'if they (namely, women) obey you, then do·not seek a
way against them' (Quran IV: 34)" . ·
(iv) The conclusion: Based on the above consideration above, the High D
Court recorded the following conclusion:
"-11. Inouropinion the correct law of'talaq' as ordained by Holy
Ouran is: (i) that 'talaq' must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii)
that it must be preceded by an attempt at reconciliationbetween
the husband and wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife E
· from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their ·
attempts fail. 'talaq' may be effected. In our opinion the Single
Judge has correctly laid down the law in Criminal Revision No.
199/77 (supra), and, with respect the Calcutta High Court in ILR
59 Calcutta 833 and the Bombay High Court in ILR 30 Bombay
537 have not laid down the correct law." F
A perusal of the consideration extracted above, when. examined
closely, reveals that the High Court listed the following essential
ingredients of a valid 'talaq' under Muslim law. Firstly, 'talaq' has to
be based on good cause, and must not be at the mere desire, sweet
will, whim and caprice of the husband. Secondly, it must not be secn~t. G
Thirdly; between the pronouncement and finality, there must be a
time gap, so that the passions of the parties may calm down, and
reconciliation may be possible. Fourthly, there has to be a process of
arbitration (as a means·ofreconciliation), wherein the arbitrators are
representatives of both the husband and the wife. If the above ingredients
H
892 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A do not exist, 'talaq' -divorce would be invalid. For the reason, that the
'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq pronounced by the respondent-husband -
Abdul Khalique Laskar, did not satisfy all the ingredients for a valid
divorce, the High Court concluded that the marriage was subsisting, and
accordingly held the wife to be entitled to maintenance ..
B 33. Masroor Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhil4, (Single Bench
judgment. authored by Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.. as he then was).
(i) The facts: Aisha Anjum was married to the petitioner - Masroor ·
Ahmed, on 02.04.2004. The marriage was duly consummated and a
daughterwas born to the couple (-on 22.10.2005). It was alleged by the
c wife -Aisha Anjum, that the husband's family threw her out of her
matrimonial home (-on 08.04.2005), on account ofnon-fulfjlment of
dowry demands. While the wife - Aisha Anjum was at her maternal
home, the husband - Masroor Ahmed filed a case for restitution of
conjugal rights (-on 23.03.2006), before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi,
During the course of the above proceedings, the wife returned to the
D matrimonial home; to the company of her husband (-on 13.04.2006),
whereupon, marital cohabitation wasTestored. Once again there was
discord between the couple, and Masroor Ahmed pronolinced 'talaq-e-
biddat', on 28.08.2006. The wife -Aisha Anjum alleged, that she later
. came to know that her husband - Masroor Ahmed, had divorced her by.
E exercising his right of 'talaq-e-biddat', in the presence of the brothers.
ofAishaAnjum, in October 2006. And that, the husband had lied to the
Court, (and to her, as well) when he had sought her restitution, from the·
Court, bymaking out as ifthe marriage was still subsisting. It was her
claim, thatshe would not have agreed to conjugal relations with him, had·
she known ofthe divorce. And therefore, her consent to have conjugal
F relations with Masroor Ahmed, was based· on fraud committed by him,
on her -Aisha Anjum. She therefore accused Masroor Ahmed, for having
· committed the offence under Section 376.ofthe Indian Penal Code, i.e.,
the offence of rape. She also claimed maintenance from her husband,
under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the pendency,
0 of the above proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement
on 1.9.2007.
(ii) The challenge: The position expressed by the High Court in paragraph
12 ofthejudgment, crystalises the challenge. Paragraph 12, is reproduced
below:
H • 2008 (103) DRJ 137
SHAYARA _BA;NO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 893
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"12. Several questions impinging upon muslim law concepts arise A
for consideration. They are:- .
(1) What is the legality and effect ofa triple talaq?
(2) Does a talaq given in anger result in dissolution of marriage?
. .

(3) What is the effect of non-communication of the talaq to the B
wife?
(4) Was the purported talaq of October 2005 valid?
(5) What is the effect of the second nikah of 19.4.2006?".
(iii) The consideration: While considering the legality and effect of'talaq- c
e~biddat'; the High Court recorded ihe following consideration:
"Sanctity and effect ofTalaq-e-bidaat or triple talaq.
24. There is no difficulty with ahsan talaq or hasan talaq. Both
have legal recognition under all fiqh schools, sunni or shia. The
difficulty lies with triple talaq which is classed as bidaat (an D
innovation). Generally speaking, the shia schools do not
· recognise triple talaq as bringing about a valid divorce'. There is.
however. difference of opinion even within the Sunni schools as
to whether the triple talag should be treated as three talags.
irrevocably bringing to an end the marital relationship or as one
rajai (revocable) talag 2• operating in much the same way as an ·E
ahsan ta lag."
I With regard to triple talaq. Fyzee comments: Such a ialaq is lawful, although sinful, in
Hanafi law; but in Ithna 'A•hari .and the Fatintid laws it is not perntissible. p. 154 .. Ameer
Ali notes: The Shiahs and the Malikis do not recognise the .validity of the talak-ul-bid'at.
whilst the Hanafi and the Shaf'eis agree.in holding that a dhwce is effective, if pronounced F
in the bid' at form, though in its commission the Dian .incurs a sin. p. 435. These. statements
may not be accurate as to the views of Malikis and Bhaf'eis. but ii is universally recognized
that the above-mentioned Shi'a·scbools do not find triple talaq to be a valid form of ·
divorce. · ,
. . ., .

' Classical Hamifi l~w practi~ed
· esp"6ially as it is in India ·seems to take the opinj~n th~i
triple talaq js sinful yet effectiw as an irrevocable diyorce. See, e.g. Mulla p. 261 -62; the
Hedaya. p. 72-73, ·83. On the other band, Ameer Ali suggests that a triple talaq can be G
revoked within the iddat period, p; 436. Maulana 'Umar Ahmad· 'Usman!. in the Qiiran;'
Women and. Modem Society, by Asghar Ali Engineer, N,ew Daw!l: Ne.w De.lhi (i005);states
that Muhammad ibn Mugatil a Hanafi jurist gave evidence indicating that -Imam Abu
Hanjfa developed a second opinion that a triple talaq constitutes one talag and that it can
therefore be revoked within. the iddat period. Maulana .otJmarA!unad 'Usmani qtiotesfrom'
Fath al-Bari by Hafiz lbn Jahar a!-Asgalani who states that many e1ninent jurists have held
the opjnion that three talaqs pronounced in one sittj!lj! constitutes only one talaq. Maulana
H
.
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R. ·

A (iv) The conclusion: Based on the consideration recorded above, the
High Court arrived at the following conclusions:

Wahiduddin Khan. in Concerning Divorce, Goodword Books: New Delhi (2003). p. 29,
says that in the case of a man who was 'emotionally overwrought' when pronouncing talaq
three times. "His three utterances of the word talaq may be taken as an expression of the
B intensity of his emotions and thus the equivalent of only one such utterance". He further
gives the example of a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud in which Rukana ibn Abu Yazid
said talag to his wife three times in one sitting and then regretted his action. When he told
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him! how he had divorced his wife. the Prophet
(pbuh) observed "All three count as only one. If you want. you may revoke it." P. 28-29
(original Hadith found in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal). There is also a Hadith reported by
Abdullah ibn Abbas that in the Prophet (pbuhl lifetime. during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. ·
c and during the first two years of Umar ibn al-Khattab's caliphate. triple 'talaq was counted
as one talag only. but that Umar then made triple talag. binding upon his people so that
they learned the consequences of their hasty action. Sahib Muslim 3491. Maulana
Wabiduddin Khan observes this rule was of a "temporary nature" and was specific to the
people of the time, and that the 'ijma of the Companions on Umar's decision was also
temporary, as 'ijma cannot override the system of divorce prescribed in the Quran. P. 30,
32. He notes that the Shariah is eternal. but that a Muslim ruler can make exceptions in
special circumstances and can ensure that women affected by such a ruling are fulh
D compensated. P. 30-31. He concludes that scholars today cannot justify enforcing triple
talaq by citing Umar's rnling because they do not have the powers of a Caliph as Umar had.
P. 32. It seems that modern Indian Hanafi scholars havae taken this opinion as well: the
Cohlpendium of Islamic Laws. 2001. Part II Section 24. states the following: "lf a perso11
pronouncing talaq says that he intended only a single talaq and repeated the words of talaq
only to put emphasis and these words were not meant to pronounce more than one talaq.
his statement on oath will be accepted" Translated by Mahmood. (Also sec: The Muslim
Law of India, 3"' ed., Tahir Mahmood Lexis Nexis Butterworths: New Delhi (2002), p.
E l 07. where the learned author noted: "In India there bas been no legislation in this regard,
but the muftis of the time now agree that if a man pronounces the so-called 'triple talaq'
but later swears that he did not mean it. his declaration may be given the effect of a single
talaq revoqable during iddat and. if not so revoked, leaving room for a fresh nikah thereafter
with the wife's consent"). Such a view is, perhaps. based upon an application of the
following legal maxim of Islamic law - Al-umuru bi-maqasidiha : Acts are judged by the
intention behind them.
F
Sheikh Sayyed Sabiq in Fiqh As-Sullllah states on the subject of triple talaq that although
the majority opinion is that triple talak will count as three divorces, other scholars such as
Ibo Taymiyyah and Ibo al-Qayyim, as well as Companions like 'Ata". Tawuus. lbn Dinar.
'Ali ibn Abi Talib, lbn Mas'ud, 'Abdur-Rahman ibn 'Awf, Az-Zubayr, were of the opinion
that it counts as only one pronouncement of divorce. He then says. "This latter view is
believed to be the inost correct." Some go as far as to argue that there is ijma 'that triple
talak counts as three talaks. However, according to the requirements for ijma '(in the
G Hanafi madhab ), 'no opinion to the contrary should have been expressed on the question
by any of the Companions, or by other Mujtahids before the formation of the ljma' ." and
"none of the Mujtahids taking part in the decision should have atlerwards changed his
opinion." Abdur Rahim, p. 145. Here, the first condition is certainly not met, and the
second is arguably not met. Finally, many Musjim countries, including Algeria. Egypt.
Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, have implemented laws that uphold the notion
that a triple talak counts as only one talak. Personal Law in Islamic Countries, Tahir
H Mahmood. Academy of Law and Religion: New Delhi (1987).
. - . . .

SHAYARA _BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 895
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"26. It is accepted by all schools of law that talag-e-bidaat is A
sinful6• Yet .some schools regard it as valid. Courts in India have
also held itto be valid. The expression - bad in theology but valid
in law - is often used in this context. The fact remains that it is.
considered to be sinful. It was. deprecated by prophet
Muhammad7• It is definitely not recommended or even approved B_
_by any school. It is not even considered to be a valid divorce by
_shia schools. There are views even amongst the sunni schools
that the trible talag pronounced in one go would not be regarded
· as three talags but only as one. Judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the harsh abruptness of triple talag has brought
_about· extreme misery to the divorced women and even to the C
; men who are left with no chance to undo the wrong or any scope
to bring about a reconciliation. It is an innovation which may
have served a purpose at a particular point of time in history8
but, if it is rooted out such a move would not be contrary to any
basic tenet ofislam or the Ouran or any ruling of the Prophet D
Muhammad.·
27. In this background, I would hold that a triple talaq (talag-e-
- bidaat), even for sunni muslims-be regarded as one revocable
· talag. This would enable the husband to have time to think and to
have ample opportunity to revoke the same during the iddat
period. All this while. family members of the spouses could make E
sincereefforts·at bringing about a reconciliation. Moreover. even
if the iddat period expires and the talag can no longer be revoked
as a consequence of it, the estranged couple still has an
opportunity to re-enter matrimony by contracting a fresh nikah
on fresh terms ofmahr etc." F
6
See supra, fn 25 & 26, for the opinion of the Hanafi madhab that triple talaq is
sinful.

' Once the Prophet (pb_uh) was informed about a man who had pronounced three
divorces at one time. He got up in anger, saying, "ls sport being made of the Book
of Allah while 1 am (yet) among you?" Reported by an-Nasai'i. G
'The exact Hadith is as follows: "Abudllah ibnAbbas reported that the pronouncemeni
of three ~ivorces during the lifetime ofAllah's Messenger (pbuh) and that ofAbu Bakr
and.two years of the caliphate ofUmarwas treated as one. But Umar ibn al-Khattab
said, "Verily the people have begun to hasten in the matter in which they are required
to observe respite. So if we had imposed this upon them, [it w6uld have deterred them
from doing so!] and he imposed it upon them." Sahib Muslim 3491. H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A A pemsal of the conclusions recorded by the High Court would reveal,
that triple talaq pronounced at the same time, is to be treated as a single
pronouncement of divorce. And therefore, for severing matrimonial ties
finally, the husband would have to complete the prescribed procedure,
and thereafter, the parties would be treated as divorced.
B . 34. Nazeer v. Shemeema5. (Single Bench judgment. authored by
A. Muhamed Mustague. J.).
(i) The facts: Through the above judgment, the High Court disposed of
a number of writ petitions, including three writ petitions, wherein husbands
had terminated their matrimonial alliance with their spouses, by
c pronouncing 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq. Their matrimonial relationship
having come to an end, one or the other or both (-this position is unclear,
from the judgment) spouses approached the passport authorities, to delete
the name of their former spouse, from their respective passports. The
passport authorities declined to accept their request, as the same was
based on private actions of the parties, which were only supported by
D unauthenticated 'talaq-namas' (deeds of divorce). The stance adopted
by the passport authorities was, that in the absence of a formal decree
of divorce, the name of the spouse could not be deleted. By passing
interim directions, the High Court ordered the passport authorities, to
correct the spouse details (as were sought), based on the admission of
E the corresponding spouse, that their matrimonial alliance had been
dissolved.
(ii) The challenge: Even though the authenticity and/or the legality of
'talaq-e-biddat', did not arise for consideration before the High Court, it
noticed " ....Though the issue related to triple talaq does not directly
F crop up in these writ petitions calling upon this Court to decide the validity
of triple talaq, this Court cannot ignore while granting a relief based on
acb;nission, the fact that direction of this Court would result in greater or
lesser extent of injustice if it remains oblivious to the repercussions of
the repudiation of marriage by volition ofindividual. .... ". The High Court
therefore, embarked on the exercise of examining the validity of 'talaq-
G e-biddat'.
(iii) The consideration: The High Court took imo consideration texts by
renowned scholars, as for instance, from "Shari!l" by Wael B. Hallaq,
"Sharia Law, An Introduction" by Mohammad Hashim Kamali, "Qur 'an:
H '2017 (I) KLT 300
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 897
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

The Living Truth" by Basheer Ahmad Mohyidin, "Muslim Law in India A
And Abroad" by Dr. Tahir Mahmood, "The Lawful and the Prohibited in
Islam" by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, from the Urdu book "Hikmatul
Islam" by Moulana Wahidul Khan. The High Court also took into
consideration Quranic verses (all of which have been, extracted above).
The High Court even took note of the two judgments of the Gauhati B
High Court (referred to above), besides other High Court judgments,
and thereupon, observed as under:
"12. This case only symptomize the harsh realities encountered
by women belonging to Muslim community, especially ofthe lower
strata. It is a reminder to the court unless the plight of sufferers
is alleviated in a larger scheme through legislation by the.State, C
justice will be a distant dream deflecting the promise of justice
by the State "equality before the law". The State is constitutionally
bound and committed to respect the promise of dignity and
· equality before law and it cannot shirk its responsibility by
remaining mute spectator of the malady suffered by Muslim D
women in the name of religion and their inexorable quest for
justice broke all the covenants of the divine law they professed
to denigrate the believer and faithful. Therefore, the remainder
of the judgment is a posit to the State and contribution for
settlement of the 'legal vex'. which remains unconcluded more
than four decades after this court's reminder in Mohamed E
Haneefas' case (supra).
13. The State is constitutionally obliged to maintain coherent order
in the society, foundation of which is laid by the family. Thus
sustenance or purity of the marriage will lay a strong foundation
for the society, without which there would be neither civilisation F
nor progress. My endeavour in this judgment would have been
over with the laying of correct principles related to triple talag in
Our' anic perspective to declare the law and to decide the matter.
However. I find the dilemma in this context is not a singular
problem arisen demanding a resolution of the dispute between G
the litigants by way of adjudication. But rather it require a State
intervention by way of legislation to regulate triple talag in India.
· Therefore. settlement of law relating to talag is necessary and
further discussion is to be treated as an allude for the State to
consider for possible reforms of divorce Law of Muslim in this
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Countrv. The empirical research placed herein justifies such
course of action to r:emind the State for action. It is to be noted,
had the Muslim in India been governed by the true Islamic law,
Penal law would have acted as deliverance to sufferings of
Muslim women in India to deter arbitrary talaq in violation of
Qur'anic injunction.
B
xxx xxx xxx
15. This takes me to the question why the State is so hesitant to
reforms. 1t appears from public debate that resistance is from a
small section ofUlemas (scholars within the society) on the ground
c that Sharia is immutable and any interference would amount to
negation of freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution.
I find this dilemma ofUlema is on a conjecture of repugnancy of
divine law and secular law. The State also appears as reluctant
on an assumption that reforms of religious practice would offend
religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
D This leads me to discuss on facets of Islamic law. I also find it
equally important to discuss about the reforms of personal law
· relating to triple talaq within the constitutional potity, as the
ultimately value of its legality has to be tested under the freedom
ofreligious practices."
E (iv) .The conclusion: In the background oflhe above consideration, the
High Court held as under:
· . "The W.P.(C) 37436 of2003 is filed by the husband alleging that
the triple talaq pronounced by him is not valid in accordance
with Islamic law. Therefore, proceedings initiated before the
F Magistrate under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, l 986 and consequent order will have
to be set aside. This case depicts the misuse of triple talaq. wife
appears to have accepted the talaq and moved the Magistrate
court on a folly created by husband. There are innumerable cases
G as revealed from the empirical data referred in the research in
which neither party are aware of the procedure of talaq according
to the personal law. This Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not expected to go into the disputed
questions of fact. The entire exercise in this judgment is to alert
the State that justice has become elusive to the Muslim woman
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 899
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

and the remedy thereof lies in codification of law of divorce. A
This court cannot grant any relief to the writ petitioner as the
trne application of the law to be considered in a given facts is
upon the Court trying the matter. It is for the subordinate court
to decide whether there was application of Islamic law in
effecting divorce by triple talaq. Therefore, declining jurisdiction,
B
this writ petition is dismissed.
J
=l
W.P.(C) Nos. 25318 & 26373 of2015 and 11438 of2016
I In these Writ Petitions guestion of validity oftri12le talag does not
i~ arise. However this guest.ion was considered in larger nersnective
for the reason that if court grant any relief based on admission c
fl of the Qarties as to the renudiation of marriage by tri12le talaag,
'
....;/"' that would amount to recognition of a tri12le talag effected not in
accordance with law, as this court has no mechanism to find out
the manner in which talag is effected. The Court cannot become
a party to a proceedings to recognise an ineffective divorce in
the guise of directions being given to passport authorities to accept D.
· . the divorce. The legal effect of such divorce has to be 12robed by
a fact finding authori!Y in accordance with the true Islamic law.
__, Stamn of a1212roval being given by the court by ordering gass12ort
authori!Y to acce12t divorce effected not in accordance with the
law, will create an im12ression that court transgressed its limits E
f\ while directing a 12ublic authority to honour an act which was
done not in accordance with law. Though in these Writ Petitions, ·
1
--..l
~
considering the urgency of the matters, this court granted interim
order directing the passport authorities to act upon the request
ofthe petitioners. Considering the large number of similar reliefs
sought before this court in various Writ Petitions, this court is of F
the view that the issue can be resolved only through a larger
remedy of codification of law in the light of the discussion as
above. In the light of interim order, these Writ Petitions are
dis12osedof
Conclusion: G

· Courts interpret law and evolve justice on such interpretation of
~
law. It is in the domain of the legislature to make law. Justice has
=/ become elusive for Muslim women in India not because of the

~~
religion they 12rofess, but on account of lack of legal formalism
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A resulting in immunity from law. Law required to be aligned with
justice. The search for solution to this predicament lies in the
hands of the law makers. It is for the law makers to correlate
law and social phenomena relating to divorce through the process
of legislation to advance justice in institutionalized form. It is
imperative that to advance justice, law must be formulated without
B
any repugnance to the religious freedom guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. It is for the State to consider the formulation
of codified law to govern the matter. Therefore. J conclude by
drawing attention of those who resist any form of reform of the
divorce law of Muslim community in India to the following verses
c of Holy Quran. (Chapter 47:2)
"And those who believe and do good works and believe in that
which is revealed unto Muhammad - and it is the truth from their
Lord-He riddeth them of their ill deeds and improveth their state."
"Thus we display the revelations for people who have sense"
D (Chapter 30:28)
The Registry shall forward the copy of this judgment to Union
Law Ministry and Law Commission oflndia."
A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the High Court reveals, that the
E practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', was deprecated by the Court. The Court
however called upon the legislature, to codify the law on the issue, as
would result in the advancement of justice, as a matter of institutional
fonn.
Part-7.
F The petitioner's and the interveners' contentions:
35. On behalf of the petitioner, besides the petitioner herself,
submissions were initiated by Mr. Amit Singh Chadha, Senior Advocate.
He invited this Court's attention to the legislative history in the field of
Muslim 'personal law' (-for details, refer to Part-4- Legislation in India,
G in the field of Muslim 'personal law'). It was submitted, that all
fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution were justiciable.
It was therefore pointed out, that the petitioner's cause before this Court,
was akin to such rights as were considered justiciable. The practice of
'talaq-e-biddat', according to learned counsel, permitted a male spouse
H - an unqualified right, to severe the matrimonial tie. It was pointed out, l
-~ ·---- ---·

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 90).,
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, "CJI]

that the right to divorce a wife, by way of triple talaq, could be exercised A
without the disclosure of any reason, and in fact, even in the absence of
reasons. It was submitted, that a female spouse had no say in the matter,
inasmuch as, 'talaq-e-biddat' could be pronounced in the absence of the
wife, and even without her knowledge. It was submitted, that divorce
pronounced by way of triple talaq was final ahd binding, between the B
parties. These actions, according to learned counsel, vested an aroitrary
right in the husband, and as such, violated the equality clause enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted, that the Constitution
postulates through the above article, equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. This right, according to learned counsel, was
clearly denied to the female spouse)n the matter of pronouncement of C
divorce by the husband by adopting the procedure of 'talaq-e-biddat' ..
Further more, it was submitted, the Constitution postulates through Article .
15, a clear restraillt on discrimination, on the ground of sex. It was
subm1tted, that 'talaq-e-biddat' violated the aforesaid fundamental right,
which postulates equality between men and women. Learned counsel D
relied on the decisions ofthis Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala6 , and Minerva Mills.Ltd. v. Union oflndia7 to contend, that it
was the duty of courts to intervene in case of violation ofany individual's
fundamental right, and to render justice. It was also submitted, that the.
rights of the female partner in a matrimonial alliance amongst Muslims,·
had resulted in severe gender discrimination, which amounted to violating E
their human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel
accordingly sought intervention, for grave injustice practiced against .
Muslim wives.
36. Mr. Amit Singh Chadha, learned senior counsel, then placed
reliance on the Jiauddin Ahmed2 , and the Rukia Khatun3 cases (-for F
details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial prnnouncements, on (he subject of
'talaq-e-biddat'). Based on the above judgments, .it was submitted,
that courts of this country had not found favour with the practice of
triple talaq, inthe manner.prevalent in India.1t was cbntended, that
'talaq-e-biddat' should not be confused with the profession, practice
and propagation of Islam. It was ·pointed out, that 'talaq-e-biddat' G
was not sacrosanctal to the profession of the Muslim religion. It was
accordingly submitted, that this Court had an indefeasible right, to
-
intervene and render justice. In order
.
to press his claim
' .
based
.
on
' • (1973} 4 sec 225
1
(19&0) 3 sec 625 H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R. I
l
I
A constitutional morality, wherein the petitioners were claiming not only
gender equality, but also the progression of their matrimonial life with
dignity, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Manoj Narula v.
Union oflndia8, wherein this Court observed as under:
"The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities
B of enormous dynamism. It is a Constitution made for a
progressive society. Working of such a Constitution depends upon
the prevalent atmosphere and conditions. Dr Ambedkar had,
throughout the debate, felt that the Constitution can live and grow
on the bedrock of constitutional morality. Speaking on the same,
· he said:
c
"Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be
cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it.
Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which
is essentially undemocratic."

D [Constituent Assembly Debates, 1948, Vol. VII, 38.]
The principle of constitutional morality basically means to bow
down to the norms of the Constitution and not to act in a manner
which would become violative of the rule oflaw or reflectible of
action in an arbitrary manner. It actually works at the fulcrum
E and guides as a laser beam in institution building. The traditions
and conventions have to grow to sustain the value of such a
morality. The democratic values survive and become successful
where the people at large and the persons in charge of the
institution are strictly guided by the constitutional parameters
without paving the path of deviancy and reflecting in action the
F primary concern to maintain institUtional integrity and the requisite
constitutional restraints. Commitment to the Constitution is a facet
of constitutional morality ... " '
\
In continuatfun with the instant submission, it was also the contention of
learned senior counsel, that Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution,
G did not in any manner, impair the jurisdiction of this Court, to set right the
apparent breach of constitutional morality. In this behalf, the Court's
attention was invited to the fact, that Article 25 itself postulates, that the
freedoms contemplated thereunder, were subject to the overriding
principles enshrined in Part Ill - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution.
H • (2014) 9 sec 1
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 903
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

This position, it was submitted, was affirmed through judgments rendered A
by this Court in John_ Vallamattom v. Union oflndia9, Javed v. State of
Haryana 10, and Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State ofUttar Pradesh 11 •
37. Learned senior counsel also drew our attention to the fact,
that a number of countri'es had, by way of express legislations, done
away with the practice of'talaq-e-biddat'. It was submitted, that even B
when talaq was pronounced thrice simultaneously, the same has, by
legislation, beeff treated as a single pronouncement,. in a number of
countries, including countries which have declared Islam as their official
State religion. It was accordingly contended, that had 'talaq-e-biddat'
been an essential part ofreligion, i.e., if it constituted a core belief, on
whieh Muslim religion~was founded, it could not have been interfered · C
with, by such legislative intervention. It was accordingly suggested, that
this Court should have no difficulty whatsoever in remedying the cause
with which the petitioners had approached this Court, as the same was
not only violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution,
but was also in contravention of the principle of constitutional morality D
emerging therefrom.
. 38. Last of all, it was contended, that it is nobody's"case before
this Court, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is a pa.t1 of an edict flowing out of the
Quran. It was submitted, that triple talaq is not recognized by many
schools of Islam. According to learned counsel, all concerned E
acknowledge, that 'talaq-e-biddat' has all along been treated irregular,
patriarchal and even sinful. It was pointed out, that it is accepted by all .
schools -even of Sunni Muslims, that' talaq-e-biddat' is "bad in theology
but good in law". In addition, it was pointed out, that even the Union of
India had affirmed before this Court, t_he position expressed above. In
such situation, it was prayed; that this Court being .a constitutional court, F
was obliged to perform its constitutional responsibility under Article 32
of the Constitution, as a protector, enforcer, and guardian of citizens'
rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It was submitted,
that in discharge of the above constitutional obligation, this Court ought
to strike down, the practice of 'talaq-e•biddat', as violative of the G
fundamental rights and constitutional morality contemplated by the
provisions of the Constitution. It was commended, that the instant practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' should be done away with, in the same ma_nner as the
• c2003) 6 sec 611
,, c2003) s sec 369
11 c201 s) s sec 439 H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A practice of'Sati', 'Devadasi' and 'Polygamy', which were components )
of Hindu religion, and faith. Learned counsel concluded his submissions
by quoting from the Constitutional Law of India, by H.M. Seervai (fourth
I
edition, Volume 2, published by N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd., Bombay), I
wherein in clause 12.60, at page 1281, the author has expressed the
B followingview: !
"12.60 I am aware that the enforcement of laws which are
violated is the duty of Govt., and in a number of recent cases
that duty has not been discharged. Again, in the last instance,
blatant violation of religious freedom by the arbitrary action of
religious heads has to be dealt with firmly by our highest Court.
c This duty has resolutely discharged by our High Courts and the
Priyy Council before our Constitution. No greater service can
be done to our country than by the Sup. Ct. and the High Courts
discharging that duty resolutely, disregarding popular clamour
and disregarding personal predilections. I am not unaware of
-D the present political and judicial climate. But I would like to
conclude with the words of very great man "never despair", for
when evil reaches a particular point, the antidote of that evil is
near at hand."
39. Mr. Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, represented Zakia
E Soman - respondent no.10. Respondent no.10 was added as a party
respondent on 29.6.2016, on the strength of an interlocutory application
filed by her. Learned senior advocate, in the first instance, invited our
attention to the various kinds of 'talaq' practiced amongst Muslims (-for
details, refer to Part-2 - The practiced modes of 'talaq' amongst
Muslims). It was submitted, that 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan'
F were approved by the Quran and the 'hadith'. It was submitted, that
'talaq-e-biddat' is neither recognized by the Quran, nor approved by the
'hadith'. With reference to 'talaq-e-biddat', it was asserted, that the
same was contrary to Quranic prescriptions .. It was submitted, that the
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' was traceable to the second century, after
G the advent oflslam. It was asserted, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is recognized
only by a few Sunni schools, including the Hanafi school. In this behalf,
it was also brought to our notice, that most of the Muslims in India
belonged to the Hanafi school of Sunni Muslims. lt was submitted, that
even the Hanafi school acknowledges, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is a sinful
. form of divorce, but seeks to justify it on the ground that though bad In
H ' .
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 905
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

theology, it is good in law. In India 'talaq-e-biddat', according to learned A
counsel, gained validity based on the acceptance of the same by the
British courts, prior to independence. It was submitted, that the judgments
rendered by the British courts were finally crystallized, in the authoritative
pronouncement by the Privy Council in the Rashid Ahmad case 1• It was
pointed out, that thereafter, 'talaq-e-biddat' has been consistently B
practised in India. · ·
40. The first contention advanced at the hands of learned senior
counsel was, that after the adoption of the Constitution, various High
Courts in India had the occasion to consider the validity of ·'talaq-e-
biddat', exercised by Muslim men to divorce their wives. And all the
High Courts (which had the occasion to deal with the issue) tinanimously C
arrived at the conclusion, that the same could not muster support either
from the Quran or the 'hadith'. In this behalf, the Court's attention was
drawn to the various judgments of High Courts including the High Court
of Gauhati in the J iauddin Ahmed case 2 - by a Single Bench, and by
the same High Court in the Rukia Khatun case 3 - by a Division Bench. D
By the Delhi High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case 4 - by a Single
Bench, and finally by the Kerala High Court in the Nazeer case 5 -
by a Single Bench (-for details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial
pronouncements, on the subject of'talaq-e-biddat'). It was submitted,
that the High Courts were fully justified in their opinions and their
conclusions. It was pointed out, that despite the aforesaid judgments, E
Muslim husbands continued to divorce their wives by 'talaq-e-biddat',
and therefore, an authoritative ·pronouncement on the matter was
required to be delivered, by this Court. Based on the decisions-relied
upon, it was submitted, that a Muslim husband, could not enjoy
arbitrary or unilateral power to proclaim a divorce, as the same does F
not accord with Islamic traditi~ns. It was also contended, that the
proclamation oftalaq must be for a demonstrated reasonable cause,
and must proceed by an attempt at reconciliation by two arbiters
(one each, from the side of the rival parties). In order to affirm the
aforesaid position; learned counsel placed reliance on Shamim Ara v.
State of U.P. 12 , to assert, that this Court approved the judgments G
referred to above. It was accordingly asserted, that ,this Court has
already recognized, the Quranic position as recorded in verses 128
to 130 of 'sura' IV and verses 229-232 of 'sura' II, and also, 'verse'
12
(2002) 1 sec s1s
H
906 .
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 35 of 'sura' IV. These verses, according to learned senior counsel,
declare the true Quranic position on the subject of divorce (-for details,
refer to Part-3 - The Holy Quran - with reference to 'talaq').
Learned counsel heavily relied on the decision rendered by the Delhi
High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case4, and by the Kerala High
B Court in the Nazeer case' to bring home his contention, that 'talaq-e-
biddat' was wholly unjustified and could not be recognized as a valid
means of divorce in the Muslim community. It was the vehement
submission ofleamed counsel, that the legal position being canvassed
on behalf of the petitioners, clearly emerged from the judgments
referred to above, anl:i should be treated as the foundation, for adoption
C and declaration by this Court. It was therefore prayed, that triple
talaq as was being practiced in India, be declared unsustainable in
Jaw.
41. It was also contended by learned senior counsel, that the settled
principles applicable in all co~on law jurisdictions including India was
D that courts do not test the constitutionality oflaws and procedures, ifthe
issue arising between the parties can be decided on other grounds. It
was submitted, that only when the relief being sought, cannot be granted
without going into the constitutionality of the law, only then courts need
to enter the thicket of its constitutional validity. Learned counsel invited
the Court's attention, to the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v.
E Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lal Jute Mills 13 , wherein this Court refused
to test the constitutional validity ofcertain provisions, by holding as under:
"7. On behalf of the appellant Mr Lal Narain Sinha has contended
that the High Court was in error in holding that the proviso to
Section 14A violates either Article 20(1) or Article 31 (2) of the
F Constitution. He has addressed us at length in supp01t of his
case that neither of the two articles is violated by the impuged
proviso. On the other hand, the learned Solicitor-General has
sought to support the findings of the High Court on the said two
constitutional points; and he has pressed before us as a preliminary
G point his argument that on a fair and reasonable constrnction,
the proviso cannot be applied to the case of the first respondent.
We would. therefore. first deal with this preliminarv point. In
cases where the vire"s of statutory provisions are challenged on
constitutional grounds. it is essential that the material facts should
H 13
AIR 1960 SC 378
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS· · 907
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

first be clarified and ascertained with a view to determine whether A
the impugned statiitozy provisions are attracted: if they are. the
constjtutional challenge to their validity must be examined and
decided. If. however. the facts admitted or proved do not attract
the impugned provisions there is no occasion to decide the issue
about the vires of the said provisions. Any decision on the said B
question would in such a case be purely academic. Courts are
and should be reluctant to decide constitutional points merely as
matters of academic importance. ·
xxx xxx xxx
19. In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to consider the C
objections raised by the first respondent against the validity of
the proviso on the ground that it contravenes Articles 20(1) and
31 (2) of the Constitution ..... "
In the· context of 'personal law', it was submitted, that in Shabnam '•
Hashmi v. Union of India 14, the Court had recently refused to examine
the constitutional validity of 'personal laws', when the issue could be D
plainly decided on the interpretation of the concemed statute. It was
therefore contended, that through a purely interpretative exercise, this
Court should declare 'talaq-e-biddat' as illegal, ineffective and having
no force in law, in the same manner as the Gauhati High Court and the
Delhi High Court, have previously so held. It was submitted, that the E
same declaration be given by this Court, by an interpretation of 'personal
law', as would incorporate the ingredients of the permissible and
acceptable modes oftalaq into 'talaq-e-biddat'.
42. In the present determination, learned senior counsel submitted,
that it would be essential to recognize the existence of distortions in the p
'hadiths'. It was pointed out, that it was by now well settled, that there
were various degrees ofreliability and/or authenticity of different 'hadiths'
(reference in this behalf was made to - Principles of Mohomedan Law
by Sii Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2Q1h edition). It was the contention of learned senior counsel,
that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (hereinafter referred to G
as, the AIMPLB), had relied on 'hadiths', that were far removed from
the time of the 'Prophet. It was submitted, that they were therefore far ·
less crectible and authentic, and also distorted and unreliable, as against
the 'hadiths' taken into consideration in the judgments rendered by the
"(2014) 4 sec 1 H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A High Courts (-for details, refer to Part-6- Ju.dicial pronouncements, on
the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat'). It was pointed out, that the AIMPLB
had relied upon a later 'hadith' (that is, Sunan Bayhaqi 7/547). It was
pointed out, that when compared to the 'ha di th' ofBhukahri (published
by Darussalam, Saudi Arabia), the 'hadith' relied upon by the AIMP LB
B appeared to be a clear distortion. It.was also submitted, that the 'hadith'
relied upon by the AIMPLB, was not found in the Al Bukhari Hadiths,
and as such, it would be inappropriate to place reliance on the same. As
against the submissions advanced on behalf of AIMP LB, it was pointed
out (in rejoinder), that Sahih Muslims believe, that during the Prophet's
time, and that of the First Caliph Abu Baqhr and the Second Caliph
C Umar, pronouncements of 'talaq' by three consecutive utterances were
' treated as one. Reference in this behalf was made to "Sahih Muslim"
compiled by Al-Hafiz ZakiuddinAbdul-AzimAl-Mundhiri, and published
by Darussalam. Learned senior counsel also invited this Court's attention
to "The lawful and the prohibited in Islam" by Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil
D Islam (edition -Augtist 2009), which was of Egyptian origin. It was
pointed out, that Egypt was primarily a Sunni Hanafi nation. It was
submitted, that the text of the above publication, clearly showed, that the
practice of instant talaq was described sinful, and was to be abhorred.
Reference was also made to "Woman in Islamic Shariah" by Maulana
Wahiduddin Khan (published by Goodword Books, reprinted in 2014),
E wherein it is opined, that triple talaq pronounced on a singular occasion,
would be treated as a single pronouncement of talaq, in terms of the
'hadith' oflmam Abu Dawud in Fath al-bari 9/27. It was submitted, that
the views of the above author, were also relied upon by the Delhi High
Court in the Masroor Ahmed case4 • Reference was also made to
"Marriage and family life in Islam" by Prof. (Dr.) A. Rahman (Adam
F Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2013 edition), wherein by placing
reliance on a Hanafi Muslim scholar, it was expressed that triple talaq
was not in consonance with Quranic verses. Reliance was also placed
on "Imam Abu Hanifa- Life and Work" by Allamah Shiblinu'mani's of
Az!lillgarh, who founded the Shibli College in the I 9'h century. It was
G submitted, that Abu Hanifa himself ruled, that it was forbidden to give
three divorces at the same time, and whoever did so was a sinner. Based
on the aforestated submissions, it was the pointed contention of learned
senior counsel, that there was no credibility in the position adopted by
theAIMPLB, in its pleadings to demonstrate the validity of the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat'.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 909
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

J' 43. Based on the above submissions, ii was contended, that the A
judgment rendered by the Privy Council in the Rashid Ahmad case l with
reference to the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' needed to be overruled. Since
'talaq-e-biddat' cannot be traced to the Quran, and since the Prophet
himself deprecated it, and since 'talaq-e-biddat' was considered sinful
by all schools of Sunni Muslims, and as invalid by all the Shia Muslim B
schools, it could not be treated to be a part of Muslim 'personal law'. It
was asserted, that triple talaq was not in tune with the prevailing social
conditions, as Muslim women were vociferously protesting against the
practice. Learned senior counsel solicited, that this Court in order to
resolve the present dispute, declare that the pronouncetnent of triple
tal_aq by a Muslim husband, in order to divorce his wife, would be treated C
as a single pronouncement of talaq, and would have to follow the
procedure of '.talaq-e-ahsan' (or, 'talaq-e-hasan') in accordance with
J the Quran, so as to conclude a binding dissolution of marriage byway of
'talaq', in terms of Muslim 'personal law'.
44. Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, was the third counsel to D
represent the cause of the petitioners. She entered appearance on behalf ·
I ofrespondent no.7 -Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, which
came to be added as a party respondent vide an order dated 29.6.2016 ..
i It was the contention oflearned senior counsel, that the term 'personal
laws' had not been defined in the Constitution, although there was
reference to the same in entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh E
Schedule. Learned counsel referred to Article 372 of the Constitution
i
which mandates, that all laws in force, in the territory of India immedia~ely
I before the commencement of the Constitution, "shall" continue in force
- 'I' until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature (or other
:1 competent authority). It was submitted, that on personal issues, Muslims F
., were governed by the Muslim 'personal law' - Shariat. It was contended,
that even before, the commencement of the Constitution, the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 193 7 enforced Muslim 'personal .
law', and as such, the Muslim 'personal law' should be considered as a
~'law in force", within the meaning of Article 13(3)(b). It was pointed
out, that the instant position made the legal position separate and distinct G
from what ordinarily falls in the realm of 'personal law'. It was also
highlighted, that a reading of entry 5 in the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule, leaves no room for any doubt, that 'personal law' necessarily
has to have nexus, to issues such as marriage and divorce, infants and
. minors, adoptions, wills, intestacy and succession, joint family property H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A and partition, etc. It was contented, that 'personal law' could therefore
conveniently be described as family law, namely, disputes relating to
issues concerning the family. It was pointed out, that such family law
disputes, were ordinarily adjudicated upon by the Family Courts, set up
under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The matters which arise for
B consideration before the Family Courts are disputes of marriage (namely,
restitution of conjugal rights, or judicial separation, or dissolution of
marriage), and the like. Based on the above backdrop, it was submitted,
that it could be safely accepted that 'personal Jaw' deals with family
Jaws and law of succession such as marriage, divorce, child custody,
inheritance, etc.
c 45. Based on the foundation recorded in the preceding paragraph,
it was submitted, that the question in the present controversy was,
whether "rule of decision" (the term used in Section 2, of the Shariat
Act) could be challenged, on the ground that the same was violative of
the fundamental rights postulated in Part lil of the Constitution? It was
D the pointed contention of!earned counsel, that no "rule of decision" can
be violative of Part III of the Constitution. It was acknowledged (we
would say - fairly), that 'personal law' which pertained to disputes
between the family and private individuals (wherein the State has no
role), cannot be subject to a challenge, on the ground of being violative
of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It was
E submitted, that insofar as Muslim 'personal law' is concerned, it could
no longer be treated as 'personal law', because it had been statutorily
declared as "rule of decision" by Section 2 of the Shariat Act. It was
therefore asserted, that all questions pertaining to Muslims, 'personal
law' having been described as "rule of decision" could no longer be
F treated as private matters between parties, nor can they be treated as
matters of mere 'personal law'. It was therefore contended, that
consequent upon the inclusion/subject of the question of" ... dissolution
of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, ... ",
amongst Muslims in the statute book, the same did not remain a private
matter between the parties. And as such, all questions/matters, falling
G within the scope of Section 2 aforementioned, were liable to be considered
as matters of 'public law'. Learned senior counsel therefore asserted,
that no one could contest the legitimacy of a challenge to 'public law' on
the ground of being violative of the provisions of the Consti tu ti on. In
support of the aforesaid foundational premise, learned senior counsel
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 911
.[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

placed reliance on Charu Khurana v. Union of India 1s, to contend that A
'talaq-e-biddat' should be considered as arbitrary and discriminatory,
under Articles 14 and 15, in the same manner as the rule prohibiting
women make-up artists ·and hair dressers from becoming members of
registered make-up artists and hair dressers association, was so declared ..
It was also pointed out, that discrimination based on sex was opposed to B
gender justice, which position was clearly applicable to the controversy
in hand. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, leame.d
counsel placed reliance on the following observations recorded in the
above judgnient:
"46. These bye-laws have been certified by .the Registrar of C
Trade Unions in exercise of the statutory power. Clause 4, as is
demonstrable, violates Section 21 of the Act, for the Act has not
made any distinction between men and women. Had it made a
bald distinction it would have been indubitably unconstitutional.
The legislature, by way of amendment in Section 21-A, has only
fixed the age. It is clear to us that the clause. apart from violating D
the statutory command. also vfolates the constitutional mandate
which postulates that there cannot be any discrimination on the
ground of sex. Such discrimination in the access of employment
and to be considered for the employment unless some justifiable
· riders are attached to it. cannot withstand scrutiny. When the
access or entry is denied. Article 21 which deals with livelihood E
is offended. It also works against the fundamental human rights.
Such kind of debarment creates a concavity in her capacity to
earn her livelihood.
xxx xxx xxx
F
50. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, the signification of
right to livelihood gets clearly spelt out. A clause in the bye-laws
of a trade union. which calls itself an Association. which is
:
accepted by the statutory authority. cannot play foul of Article
21."
Il 46. Learned senior counsel, thereupon attempted to express the
same position, through a different reasoning. It is necessary to recall,
G

that the question posed for c_onsideration is, whether this Court should
accept "rule of decision" under Section 2 of the Shariat Act - as "laws

·" {2015) 1 sec in H
._
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A in force" within the meaning ofArticle 13 of the Constitution, and thereby,
test the validity thereof, on the touchstone of the fundamental rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution? It was the fervent contention
oflearned senior counsel, that all questions falling for consideration within
the meaning of the term "rule of decision" had necessarily to be treated
as "laws in force". Thus, it was submitted, that such laws were to be in
B
consonance with the provisions of Part III - Fundamental Rights, of the
Constitution. Insofar as the challenge to the constitutional validity of
'talaq-e-biddat' is concerned, learned senior counsel, adopted the
submissions advanced by other learned counsel.
47. Learned senior counsel, then placed reliance on the Universal
c Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 10.12.1948, to contend that the preamble thereof recognised
the inherent dignity of the entire human family, as equal and inalienable.
It was submitted, that the charter provides for equal rights to men and
women. It was submitted, that Article 1 thereof provides, that all human
D beings were born free and equal, in dignity and rights. Referring to
Article 2, it was submitted, that there could be no distinction/discrimination
on the basis inter alia of sex and/or religion. It was submitted, that it
was this Court's responsibility to widen, and not to narrow, the right of
equality contained in the aforestated Declaration. The Court's attention
was also drawn to the International Convention on Economic, Social
E
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provided for elimination of all forms
of discrimination against women. The instant convention was adopted·
by the United Nations General Assembly on I0.04.1979. It was submitted,
that the International Convention bill of rights for women, was instituted
on 3.9.1981, and had been ratified by 189 States. It was pointed out,
F that India had also endorsed the same. It was submitted, that Article I
thereof defines "discrimination", as discrimination against women on
the basis of sex. Referring to Article 2, it was submitted, that all State
parties who ratified the above convention, condemned discrimination
against women in all its forms, and agreed to eliminate discrimination
against women by following the principle of equality amongst men and
G women, in their national Constitutions, as well as, other legislations. Tt
was submitted, that Article 2 of the convention mandates, that all States
would take all steps to eliminate discrimination against women - by any
person, organisation or enterprise. It was submitted, that insofar as the
present controversy is concerned, the provisions of the above declaratfons
H and conventions can be relied upon, to test the validity of'talaq-e-biddat',
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ' 913
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

by treating it as "rule of decision" and for that matter, as law in force (on A
the touchstone of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution). It was
further submitted, that in any case, the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', clearly
violated the norms adopted by the declaration, and conventions.
48. It was acknowledged, by learned senior counsel, that India
recognises a plural legal system, wherein different religious communities B
are permitted to be governed by different 'personal laws', applicable to
them. .It was submitted, that there could be no dispute, that different
religious communities can have different laws, but the laws of each
religious community must meetthe test of constitutional validity and/or --
constitutional morality, inasmuch as, they cannot be violative of Articles C
14 and 15 of the Constitution. Viewed in the above context, it was
submitted, that even though matters of faith and belief are protected by
Article 25 of the Constitution, yet law relating to marriage and divorce
were matters of faith and belief, were also liable to be tested on grounds
of P!.!blic order, morality and health, as well as, on the touchstone of the
other provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution. Therefore, on a plain D
reading of Article 25, according to learned senior counsel, the right to
freedom of conscience was subject to public order, morality, health, and
the other provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. And as
such, according to learned counsel, the said rights must be so interpreted,
that no 'personal law' negates any of the postulated conditions contained
in Article 25 of the Constitution itself. It was submitted, that Articles 14 E · ·
and 15 of the Constitution were not subject to any restrictions, including
any restriction under Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution. It was contended, -
that the cardinal principle of interpretation of the Constitution was, that .
all provisions of the Constitution must be harmoniously construed, so
that there remained no conflict between them. It was therefore submitted, F
that Articles 14 and 15 on the one hand, and Articles 25 and 26 on the
other, must be harmoniously construed with each other, to prevent
discrimination against women, in a manner as would give effect to
equality, irrespective of gender. It was contended, that it was totally
irrelevant whether 'personal law' was founded on custom.or religion, or
was codified or uncodified, if it is law and "rule of decision", it can be G
challenged under Part Ill of the Constitution.
49. Learned senior counsel, also expressed a personal view on
the matter, namely, that divorce altered the status of married women,
which can leave her destitute. It was asserted, that for all other
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

'
A communities in India, divorce could only be obtained from a judicial forum.
And, a judgment and decree of divorce, was a decision in rem, which
alters the legal status of the concerned person, as against the whole
world. It was submitted, that for all other communities in India, divorce
was not a matter between the private parties, to be settled on their own.
B Nor could any 'fatwa' be issued, recognising unilateral 'talaq'. It was
submitted, that for one party alone, the right to annul a marriage, by a
unilateral private 'talaq ',was clearly against public policy, and required
to be declared as impermissible in law, and even unconstitutional. In this
behalf, it was contended, that no person's status could be adversely
altered so as to suffer civil consequences (for the concerned person -
C the wife in this case) by a private declaration. It was submitted, that
annulment of the matrimonial bond was essentially a judicial function,
which must be exercised by a judicial forum. Any divorce granted by
way of a private action, could not be considered as legally sustainable in
law. And for the instant additional reason, it was submitted, that unilateral
D talaq in the nature oftalaq-e-biddat, whereby, a Muslim woman's status
was associated with adverse civil consequences, on the unilateral
determination of the male spouse, by way of a private declaration, must
be considered (-and therefore, be held) as clearly unsustainable in law.
50. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate, appearing as an
intervener, submitted, that for searching a solution to a conflict, or for
E the resolution of a concern under Islamic law, reference had first to be
made to the Qw·an. The availability of an answer to the disagreement,
from the text of the Quran, has to be treated as a final pronouncement
on the issue. When t_lige is no clear guidance from the Quran, reference
must be made to the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad- 'sunna', as
F recorded in the 'hadiths'. lfno guidance is available on the issue, even
from the 'hadiths', reference must then be made to the general consensus
ofopinion- 'ijma'. Ifa resolution to the dispute is found in 'ijma', it
should be considered as a final view on the conflicting issue, under Islamic
law. It was submitted, that the precaution that needed to be adopted
while referring to 'hadiths' or 'ijma' was, that neither of the two can
G derogate from the position depicted in the Quran.
51. Learned senior counsel, then invited our attention to different
kinds of 'talaq', including 'ila', 'zihar', 'khula' and 'mubaarat'. It was
emphasised, that the concept of 'talaq-e-biddat' (also described as
irregular talaq), was based on the limit of three talaqs available to a man,
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 915
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

namely, that a man can divorce the same wife (woman) three times in A
his life time. The first two are revocable within the period of 'iddat',
whereas, the third talaq was irrevocable. Learned senior counsel, then
invited the Court's attention to verses from the Quran (,for details, refer
to Part-3 -The Holy Quran, with reference to 'talaq'). However, during
the course of his submissions, learned senior counsel emphasized the
fact, that mere repetition of divorce thrice in one sitting, would not result B
in a final severance of the matrimonial relationship between spouses. In
order to support his above contention, reliance was placed on the following
traditions, from Sunna Muslim:
. "i. [3652] 1 - (1471) It was narrated from lbn 'Umar that he C
divorced his wife while she was menstruating, at the time of the
Messenger ofAllah 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the Messenger
ofAllah about that and the Messenger ofAllah said to him: "Tell
him to take her back, then wait until she has become pure. then
menstruated again, then become pure again. Then if he wishes
he may keep her. or if he wishes he may divorce her before he D ·
has intercourse with her. That is the' Iddah (prescribed periods)
for which Allah has enjoined the divorce of women."
ii. [3673] 15 - (1472) It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:
"During the time of the Messenger of Allah it. Abii Bakr and the
first two years of 'Umar's Khi1afah, a threefold divorce (giving E
divorce thrice in one sitting) was counted as one. Then 'Umar
binAl-Khattiib said: 'People have become hasty in a matter in
-- which they should take their time. I am thinking of holding them
to it.' So he made it binding upon them." . -or
· iii. [3674] 16-( ... ) lbn Tawiis narrated from his fatherthatAbii. F
As-Sahba' said to lbn 'Abbas: "Do you know that the threefold
divorce was regarded as one at the time of the Messenger of -
Allah iW and Abii Bakr. and for three years of 'Umar's
leadership? "He said: "Yes".
iv. [3675] 17 - ( ... )It was narrated from Tawiis that AN As- G
Sahba' said to lbn 'Abbas: "Tell us of something interesting that
you know. Wasn't the threefold divorce counted· as one at the
time of the Messenger of Allah andAbii Bakr?" He said: "That
was so, then at the time of 'Umar the people began to issue
· divorces frequently, so he made it binding upon them.
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A v. "Mahmud-b, Labeed reported that the Messenger of Allah
was informed about a man who gave three divorces at a time to
his wife. Then he got up enraged and said, 'Are you playing
with the Book of Allah who is great and glorious while I am still
amongst you? So much so that a man got up and said; shall I not
~
kill him."
B
vi.According to an Hadith quoted by M. Mohammed Ali in
Manual of Hadeth p. 2861 from Masnad of Imam Ahmad bin
Hanbul I :34, the Ilrocedure during the time of ProI!het and the
caliI!hate of Abu Bakr, and the first two years of Raz.rat Umar
was that divorce uttered thricewas considered as one divorce.
c The Umar said, "people had made haste in a matter in which
that was moderation for them, so we may make it take effect
with regard to them. So he made it take effect to them." The
Holy Quran is however very clear on the I!Oint that such a divorce
must be deemed to be a single divorce.
D vii. There is another tradition reported by Rokanah-b. Abu Yazid
that he gave his wife Sahalmash an irrevocable divorce, and he
conveyed it to the Messenger of Allah and said: by Allah, I have
not intended but one divorce. Then messenger of Allah asked
Have you not intended but one (divorce)? Rokana said: By Allah,
E I did not intend but one divorce. The Messenger of Allah then
returned her back to him. Afterwards he divorced her for second
time at the time of Hadrat Omar and third time at the time of
Hadrat Osman.
viii. The Quranic philosophy of divorce is further buttressed by
F the Hadith of the Prophet wherein he warned, 'of all things which
have been germitted, divorce is the most hated by Allah'. The
ProI!het told his 11eo11le: "Al-Talagu indallah-1 abghad al-
mubahat", meaning "Divorce is most detestable in the sight of
God; abstain from it."
f"
G ix: [2005] 43 - (867) It was narrated that Jiibir bin 'Abdullah
said: "When the Messenger of Allah delivered a Khutbah, his
eyes would tum red, his voice would become loud, and his anger
would increase, until it was as ifhe was warning of an attacking
army, saying: 'The enemy will attack in the morning or in the
evening.' He said: 'The Hour and I have been sent like these
'H
,.-
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 917
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI].

two,' and he held his index finger and mi.ddfo finger up together. A
And he would say: 'The best of speech is the Book of Allah, the
best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad, and the worst
of matters are those which are newly-invented, and every
innovation is a going astray.' Then he w011ld say: 'I am clo.ser to
every believer than his owli sel_f. Whoever leaves behind Wealth, B
it is for his family; whoever leaves behind a debt or dependants,
then the respensibility of pa;ring it off.ana of caring for them
rests upon me.
· x. [20.06) 44 -( ... ) Ji\bir bin 'Abdullah said: "In the Khutbah of
the Prophet on Friday, he would praise Allah, then qe would say
other things, raising his voicr ... " a similar Hadith (as no.2005). c
xi. [4796] 59 - (1852) It was narrated that Ziyad bin 'Ilaqah
said: "I heard. 'Arfajah say: 'I h.~ard the Messenger of Allah say:
."There will be Fitnah and.innovations. Whoeverwants to divide
this Ummah when it is united, strike him with the swonj, .no
,_·: matter who he is." D

, " ·
xii. [4797] ( ... )A similar report (as· no.2796) was narrated from
'Arfajah from the Prophet, except that in their Hadith it. says:
" ... kill him"."
Based on the above, it was submitted, that in ten_ns of the clear message E
in the Quran, the acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are to be
_obeyed. Therefore, when the aforementioned .'hadiths' are available
stating in clear terms, that the Prophet Muhammad, considered the
pronouncement of three divorces in one sitting as one, that should be
given due expression. It was the contention ofleamed senior counsel,
that it is reported, that when once news was brought to the Prophet F
Muhammad, that one of his disciples had divorced his wife, by pronouncing
three talaqs at one and the same time, the Prophet Muhammad stood up
in anger and declared that the man was making a plaything of the words
of God, and made him take back his wife. The instance, which is supported
by authentic support through available text, according to learned s~nior G
counsel, was sufficient by itself, to dispose of the present controversy. ·
52. It was also submitted, that even if one ex(lmines the deeds of ·
-~-the Prophet Muhammad's companions, it was quite clear from the
'hadiths', that the same were followed during Caliph Abu Bakr's time,
and also during the first two years of Caliph Umar. But thereafter, only
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A to meet an exigency, Caliph Umar started accepting the practice of
pronouncing three divorces in one sitting, as final and in-evocable. Insofar
as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned senior counsel
nmated the following background:
"(a) Caliph Umar, finding that the checks imposed by the Prophet
B on the facility of repudiation interfered with the indulgence of
their caprice, endeavoured to find an escape from the strictness
of the :aw, and found in the pliability of the jurists a loophole to
effect their purpose.
(b) When the Arabs conquered Syria, Egypt, Perisa, etc. they
c found women there much better in appearance as compared to
Arabian women and hence they wanted to marry them. But the
Egyptian and Syrian women insisted that in order to marry them,
they should divorce their existing wives instantaneously, by
pronouncing three divorces in one sitting.
D - (c) The condition was readily acceptable to the Arabs, because
they knew that in Islam divorce was peffnissible only twice in
two separate period oftuhr and its repetition in one sitting was
considered un-Islamic, void and not effective. In this way, they .

E
could not only marry these women, but also retain their existing
wives. This fact was reported to the second Caliph Hazrat Umar. r
I

(d) The Caliph Umar then, in order to prevent misuse of the
religion by the unscrupulous husbands decreed, that even
~
repetition of the word talaq, talaq, talaq at one sitting, would
dissolve the marriage irrevocably. It was, however, a mere
administrative measure of Caliph Umar, to meet an emergency
F situation, and not to make it a legally binding precedent
permanently."
53. It was also the contention ofleamed senior counsel, thatHanafi
jurists who considered three pronouncements at one sitting, as amounting
to a final divorce explained, that in those days people did not actually
G mean three divorces but meant only one divorce, and other two
pronouncements were meant merely to emphasise the first
pronouncement. But in the contemporary era, three pronouncements
were made with the intention to effect three separate and distinct
declarations,. and hence, they were not to be counted as a singular
H announcement. This interpretation of the Hanatijurists, it was submitted,
( ....
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 919
•
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

was generally not acceptable, as it went against the very spirit of the A
Quran, as well· as, the 'hadith' which enjoin, that in case ofbreachl:Jetween
husband and wife, it should be referred to the arbitration, arid failing an
''
amicable settlement, a divorce was permissible, ~ubject to a period of
waiting or 'idaat', during wh_ich a reconciliation was also to be attempted,
and if successful, the husband could take back his wife. The main idea B
in the procedure for divorce, as laid down by Islam, it was submitted,
.was 'to give the parties an opportunity for repproachment. If three
pronouncements are treated as a 'mughallazah' ~ divorce, then no
opportunity is available to the spouses, to retrieve a decision taken in
haste. The rule of 'talaq-e~biddat', it was pointed out, was introduced
long after the time of the Prophet. It was submitted, that it renders the C
measures provided for in the Quran against hasty action ineffective, and
thereby deprives people of a chance to change their minds, .to retrieve
their mistakes and retain their wives.
54. Based on the above submissions, it was contended, that though
· matte~s. of religion have periodically come before courts in India, and the D
issi.tes have been decided in the context of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution. Raising concerns over issues of empowerment of all citizens
and gender justice, it was submitted, had increased the demand on courts
to respond to new challenges. The present slew of cases; it was pointed
out, was a part of that trend. It was submitted, that'the Supreme Cciurt
could not refuse to engage itself, on the ground that the issues involved E
have political overtones or motives, and also because, they might pertain
to a narrow constitutional permissibility. It was contended, that to refuse
, an invitation to examine broader issues such as whether 'personallaws'
were part of 'laws in force' under Article 13, andJherefore, subject to
judicial review, or whether a uniform civil ccide should be enforced, would F
not be appropriate. It was submitted, if the immediate .concern about
triple talaq could be addressed, by endorsing a more acceptable alternate
interpretation, based on a pluralistic reading of the sources oflslam, i.e.,
by taking a holistic view of the Quran and the 'hadith' as indicated by
·various schools of thought (not just the Hanafi school), it would be
sufficient for the purpose ofensuring justice to the petitioners, and others G
similarly positioned as them. ·
55. Jn support of his abcive submissions, learned senior counsel
. placed reliance on legislative changes with reference to 'tafaq~e-biddat'
all over the world (-for detailS, refer to Part-5 :-- Abrogation of the
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as
well as, non-Islamic States). Reliance was also placed on judicial
pronouncements, rendered by different High Courts with reference to
'talaq-e-biddat' (-for details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial pronouncements,
on the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat'), so as to conclude, that triple talaq
B pronounced at the same time should be treated as a single pronouncement
of divorce, and thereafter, for severing matrimonial ties, the husband
would have to complete the prescribed procedure provided for 'talaq-e-
ahsan' /'talaq-e-hasan', and only thereafter, the parties would be treated
as divorced.
56. While advancing his aforesaid contention, there was also a
c note of caution expressed by learned senior counsel. It was pointed out,
that it was not the role of a court, to interpret Muslim 'personal law' -
Shariat. It was asserted, that under Muslim 'personal law', the religious
head- the Imam would be called upon, to decipher the teachings of the
Quran and the 'hadiths' in case of a conflict. And thereupon, the Imam
D had the responsibility to resolve issues of conflict, not on the basis of his
own views, but by reading the verses, namely, the Quran and the 'hadiths',
and to determine therefrom, the correct interpretation. It was submitted,
that the role of a court, not being a body well versed in the intricacies of
faith, would not extend to an interpretation of either the Quran or the
'hadiths', and therefore, 'talaq-e-biddat' should also be interpreted on
E the touchstone of reasonableness, in tune with the prevailing societal
outlook.
57. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishna, Advocate, appeared on behalf of
respondent no.11 (in Writ Petition (C) No.118of2016)- Dr. Nooi:jehan
Safia Niaz, who was impleaded as such, by an order dated 29.6.2016. It
F was submitted by learned counsel, that 'talaq-e-biddat' was a mode of
divorce that operated instantaneously. It was contended, that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat', was absolutely invalid even in terms of Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was submitted, that it was not required of
this Court to strike down the practice of'talaq-e-biddat', it was submitted,
G that it would suffice if this Court merely upholds the order passed by the
Delhi High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case4, by giving a me'aningfol
interpretation to 'talaq-e-biddat', which would be in consonance with
the verses of the Quran and the relevant 'hadiths'.
58. It was also asserted by learned counsel, that Islam from its
H very inception recognized rights of women, which were not available to
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 921
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

women of other communities. It was pointed out, that the right of divorce A
was conferred on Muslim women, far before this right was conferred
on women belonging to other communities. It was asserted, that even in
the 71h century, Islam granted women the right of divorce and remarriage.
The aforesaid legal right, according to learned counsel, was recognized
by the British, when it promulgated the Shariat Act in 193 7. It was B
submitted, that through the above legislation all customs and usages
contrary to the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', were unequivocally
annulled. It was therefore contended, that while evaluating the validity
of 'talaq-e-biddat', this Court' should be conscious of the fact, that the
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', was a forward looking code ofconduct,
regulating various features in the lives of those who professed the Muslim C
religion.
59. It was also submitted, that the Quran did not recognize 'talaq-
e-biddat'. It was pointed out, that the Prophe.t Muhammad considered
only two forms of divorce to be valid, namely, 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-
e~hasan'. Despite there being numerous schools ofMuslimjurisprudence, D
only two schools recognized 'talaq-e-biddat' as a mode of divorce. It
was submitted, that none of the Shia schools recognized triple talaq, as a
valid process of divorce between spouses. Insofar as 'talaq-e-biddat' is
concerned, it was asserted, that the Quran does not approve
instantaneous talaq. During the process of initiation of divorce and its
finalization, it is necessarily to have a time lag and a timeline. It cannot E
be instantaneous. It was pointed out, that the time lag is the period of
'iddat' for determining whether the wife is pregnant or not, i.e., for
ascertaining the wife's purity. But the time line, is for adopting arbitration,
to probe the possibility ofreconciliation. 'Talaq-e-biddat', according to
learned counsel, was a subsequent improvisation, that had crept into the F
· . Hanafi school of Sunnis. It was asserted, that the British judges prior to
independence, made a huge blunder by upholding 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple
talaq. Learned counsel placed reliance on a number of judgments
rendered by different High Courts, culminating in the recent judgments
of three High Courts (-for details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial
pronouncements, on the subject of'talaq-e-biddat'). G
60. Based 011 the above, it was asserted, that 'talaq-e-biddat' could
not be considered as a valid mode for severing matrimonial ties under
the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. In view of the above submissions, .
. and on a reiteration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A who had entered appearance prior to her, it was submi!ted, that the clear
preponderance ofjudicial opinion after independence oflndia has been,
that Muslim 'personal law', does not approve 'talaq-e-biddat', and
therefore, in terms of the Muslim 'personal law', this Court should declare
'talaq-e-biddat', as unacceptable in law, and should also declare it as
unconstitutional.
B
61. Dr. Rajan Chandra and Mr. Arif Mohd. Khan, Advocates,
appeared on behalf of the Muslim Women Personal Law Board. It was
their contention, that it has been acknowledged by all concerned, including
the AIMPLB, that 'talaq-e-biddat' was derogatory to the dignity ofwomen,
and that, it breaches the concept of gender equality. It was submitted,
C that the above position could easily be remedied through judicial
intervention. In this behalf, our attention was drawn to Article 13 of the
· Constitution, which mandates, that all laws in force in the territory of
India (immediately before the commencement of the Constitution), as
were inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of
D the Constitution, were to the extent of such inconsistency, to be treated
as void. The above declaration, it was pointed out, had to be expressed
through legislation, by the Parliament, and in case the Parliament was
reluctant in bringing out such a legislation (-presumably, for political ·
considerations), it wa's the bounden duty of this Court, to declare such
existing laws which were derogatory to the dignity of women, and which
E violated the concept of gender equality, as void, on account of their being
in conflict with the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the
Constitution. Both learned counsel, invited our attention to the legislative
march of events commencing from the enactment of the Shariat Act in
1937, by the British rulers of India, who took upon themselves, extreme
F cudgels to initiate the grant of appropriate rights to women. As also, the
enactment of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (again during
the British regime), whereby, Muslim women were conferred with a
right to divorce their husbands, on eight distinctgrounds. It was submitted,
that the protection of Muslim women's rights, which needed to have
continued even after independence, had remained stagnant, resulting in
G insurmountable sufferings to the Muslim women, specially in comparison
with women of other faiths. One of the grounds of such suffering, it
was pointed out, was surely 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq, which has
been a matter of substantial furore and outcry at the hands of Muslim_
women. During the course of hearing, our attention was drawn to
H fundamentals of lslam from the Quran (-for details, refer to Part-3 -
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 923
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

The Holy Quran - with reference to· 'talaq'), and 'hadiths'. ·Views of A
Imams on 'fiqh' and 'hadith' and other relevant texts were referred to
(as were also relied upon by learned counsel who appeared before th.em
- and have been duly referred to al;ove ), to contend that triple talaq had
never been accepted as a valid means of divorce, even under the Muslim
'personal law'. Adopting the submissions ofleamed counsel, who had B
already assisted this Court on behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted,
that this Court should declare 'talaq-e-biddat', as unconstitutional and
violative of Articles I 4 and 15 of the Constitution.
62. The learned Attorney General for India - Mr. Mukul Rohatgi
commenced his submissions by contending, that in this case, this Court
has been called upon·to determine, whether the practice of 'talaq-e- C
biddat' was compatible with contemporary constitutional' morality and
the principles of gender equality and gender equity guaranteed under the
Constitution. In the context of the above debate, it was submit_ted, that
the pivotal issue that needed to be answered was, whether under a secular
Constitution, Muslim women could be discriminated against, merely by D
virtue of their religious identity. And/or whether Muslim women, could
be relegated to a status significantly more vulnerable than their
cotmterparts who professed other faiths - Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian,
• Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, etc .. In other words, the fundamental question for
determination by this Court, according fo learned Attorney General was,
whether.in a secular democracy, religion can be a reason to deny equal E
status and dignity, to Muslim women.
63. In the above context, it was pointed out, that the fundamental
right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution,
manifested within its fold, equality of status. Gender equality, gender
equity and gender justice, it was submitted, were values intrinsically F
· entwined in the guarantee of equality, under Article I4. The conferment
of a social status based on patriarchal values, or a social status bas~d on
the mercy of the men-folk, it was contended, were absolutely incompatible
vlith the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The
rights of a Muslim woman to human dignity, social ·esteem and self- G
worth, it was submitted, were vital facets of a woman's right to life with
dignity, under Article 2 I of the Constitution. It was submitted, that gender
justice was a constitutional goal of overwhelming importance and
magnitude, without accomplishing the same, half of the country's citizenry,
would not be able to enjoy to the fullest - their rights, status and
!' H

l
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A opportunities. Reference was also made to clause (e) of Article 51-A of
the Constitution, which is extracted below:
"(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood
amongst all the peqple ofindia transcending religious. linguistic
and regional or sectional diversities: to renounce practices
B derogatory tQ the dignity of women;"
It was accordingly asserted, that Muslim women could not be sLtbjected
to arbitrary and unilateral whims of their husbands, as in the case of
divorce by triple talaq amongst Shia Muslims belonging to the Hanafi
school.
c 64. It was stibmitted, that gender equality and the dignity of
women, were non-negotiable. These rights were necessary, not only to
realize the aspirations of every individual woman, who is an equal citizen
of this country, but also, for the larger well being of society and the
progress of the nation, one half of which is made up by women. It was
D submitted, that women deserved to be equal participants in the
development and advancement of the world's largest democracy, and
any practice which denudes the status of an inhabitant of India, merely
by virtue of the religion he/she happens to profess, must be considered
as an impediment to that larger goal. In this behalf, reliance was placed
on C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirnkoil 1b,
E wherein a 3-Judge Bench of this Court observed as under:
"15. lt is seen that if after the Constitution camdnto force. the
right to equality and dignity ofoerson enshrined in the Preamble
of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
which are a trinity intended to remove discrimination or disability
F qn grounds only of social status or gender. removed the pre-
existing impediments that stood in the way of female or weaker
segments of the society. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994)
3 SCC l] this Court held that the Preamble is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Handicaps should be removed only
G under rule of law to enliven the trinity of justice, equality and
liberty with dignity of person. The basic strncture permeates
equality of status and opportw1ity. The personal laws conferring
inferior status 011 women is anathema to egiiality. Personal laws
are derived not from the Constitution but from the religious

H " (l 996) s sec 525
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 925
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
•,
... scri12tures. The laws thus deriveg must be consistent with the A
Qonstitution lest they become void under Article 13 if they violate
fundamental rights. Right to eguality is a fundamental right. ...
16. The General Assembly of tbe United ~ations adQ12ted a
declaration on 4-12-1286 on "Ihl:l Develo12ment of the Right to
Develogment" in which India 12layed a cmsading role for its B
adogtion and ratified the same. Its nreamble recognises that all
hyman rights and fung11mental (reedoms are indivisible 11nd
interdependent. All Nation States are concerned at the existence
. of serious obstacles to development and complete fulfilment of
human beings, denial ofcivil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights. In order to promote development, equal attention should c
be given to the implementation, promotio11 and protection o(civil,
political, economic, social and political rights.
17. Article 1(1) assures right to developme1it an inalienable htu11an
right, by virtue of which every person and all people are entitled
to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural D
and political development in which all human rights and
fundame11tal freedoms can be fully realised. Article 6( 1) obligates
the State to observance of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without any discrimination as to race, sex,
language or religion. Sub-ai1icle (2) enjoins that , , . equal attention E
and urgent consideration should be given to implement, promotion
and protection of civil, political, economic, social and political
rights. Sub-ai·ticle (3) thereof enj9ins that:
· "State should take steps to eliminate obstacle to development,
resulting from failure to observe civil and political rights as well F
as economic, social and economic rights. Article 8 casts duty 011
the State to undertake, ... necessary measures for the realisation
of right to development and ensure, inter alia, equality of
opportunity for all in their access to basic resources .. . and
distribution of income."
G
Effective measures should be undertaken to ensure that women
have an active role in the development process. Appropriate
economic and social refonns should be carried out with a view
to eradicate all sociai injustice.

H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 18. Human rights are derived from the dignity and worth inherent
in the human person. Human rights and fundamental freedom
have been reiterated by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Democracy, development and respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and have mutual
reinforcement. The human rights for women, including girl child
B
are. therefore, inalienable, integral and indivisible prut of universal
human rights. The full development of personality and
fundamental freedoms and equal participation by women in
political, social, economic and cultural life are concomitants for
national development, social and family stability and growth,
c culturally, socially and economically. All forms of discrimination
on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and
human rights."
Reference was also made to Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of lndia 1;,
wherein it was submitted, that this Court had emphasized on the value of
D gender equality, and the need to discard patriarchal mindset. For arriving
at the above conclusion, it was submitted, that this Court had relied upon
international jurisprudence, to strike down a law which debarred women
from employment on the pretext that the object of the law was, to afford
them protection. The Court held that "it is for the court to review that
the majoritarian impulses rooted in moralistic tradition do not impinge
. E
upon individual autonomy (of the women)". The Court also quoted from
a judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court where discrimination was
rationalized "by an attitude of'romantic paternalism' which, in practical
effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage ... ". Reference was
also made to Vishaka v. State ofRajasthan 18 , wherein, in the context of
F protection of women against sexual harassment at the workplace, this
Court underlined the right of women to a life with dignity. Additionally,
our attention was drawn to the Charu Khurana case 15 , wherein it was
concluded, that the "sustenance of gender justice is the cultivated
achievement 'of intrinsic human rights and that there cannot be any
discrimination solely ori the ground of gender." The learned Attorney
G Generai also cited, Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank oflndia 19 , wherein
this Court had the occasion to interpret the provisions of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It was submitted, that this Cami
11
(2008) 3 sec 1
" ( 1997) 6 sec 241
H " (1999) 2 sec 22s
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 927
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
.,
·I
in the above judgment emphasized the necessity to take measures to A
. bring domestic law in line with international conventions, so as to eradicate
discrimination of all forms, against women. It was submitted, that Articles
14, 15 and 21 consituted an inseparable part of the basic structure of the ·
Constitution. These values - the right to equality, non-discrimination and
the right to live life with dignity, it was emphasized, formed the bedrock B
of the Constitution. Gender equality and dignity for women, it was pointed
out, was an inalienable and inseparable part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Since women transcend all social barriers, it was submitted,
that the most fundamental facet of equality under the Constitution was
gender equality, and gender equity. . ,.
65. The learned Attorney General also pointed out, that a large c
number oflslarnic theocratic countries and countries with oveiwhelmingly
large Muslim populations, had undertaken significant reforms including
the practice of triple talaq. These societies had accepted reform, as
6eing consistent with the practice oflslam (-for details, refer to Part-5 -
Abrogation of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world D
over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States). The paradox was that,
Muslim women in India, were more vulnerable in their social status as
against women even in predominantly Islamic States, even though India
is a secular counhy. It was submitted, that the position oflndian Muslim
women was much worst, than· Muslim women who live in theocratic
· societies, or countries where Islam is the State religion. It was contended,
E .
that the impugned practice was repugnant to the guarantee of secularism,
which it was pointed out, was an essential feature of the Constitution.
Perpetuation of regr~ssive or unjust practices in the name of religion, it
was submitted, was anathema to a secular Constitution, which guarantees
non-discrimination on grounds of religion. It was also submitted, that in F
the context of gender equality and gender equity, the larger goal of the
State was, to strive towards the establishment of a social democracy,
where each one was equal to all others. Reference in this behalf was
'. made to the closing speech on the draft Constitution on 25'h November,
i
! 1949, of Dr. Ambedkar who had stated: "What we must do is not to be
attained with mere political democracy; we must make out political G
democracy and a social democracy as well. Political-d~mocracy cannot
·r last unless there lies on the base of it a social democracy." A social
t
democracy has been described as "A way of life which recognizes liberty,
equality and fraternity as' principles oflife". It was therefore submitted,
that in order to achieve social democracy, and in order to provide social H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A and economic justice (envisaged ill the preamble), namely, goals
artici1lated ill the fundamental rights and directive principles, and in
particular, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46, had to be given effect to.
In the instant context, the learned Attorney Gelleral placed reliance on
Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University 20 , and drew the Court's attention
B to the following:
"16.The Constitution seeks to establish secular socialist
democratic republic in which eve1y citizen has eguality of status
and of opportunity. to promote among the people dignity of the
individual. unity and integrity of the nation transcending them
from caste. sectional. religious ba1Tiers fostering fraternity among
c them in an integrated Bharat. The emphasis, therefore, is on a
citizen to improve excellence and equal status and dignity of
person. With the advancement of human rights and constitutional
philosophy of social and economic democracy in a democratic
polity to all the citizens on equal footing, secularism has been
D held to be one of the basic features of the Constitution (Vi de: S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC I and egalitarian social
order is its foundation. Unless free mobility of the people is
allowed transcending sectional. caste. religious or regional barriers.
establishment of secular socialist order becomes difficult. In State
ofKamataka v. Appu Balu Ingale & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 1126
E this Court has held in paragraph 34 that judiciary acts as a bastion
of the freedom and of the rights of the people. The Judges are
participants in the living stream ofnational life. steering the law
between the dangers ofrigiditv and formlessness in the seemless
web of life. Judge must be a jurist endowed with the legislator's
F wisdom, historian's search for truth. prophet's vision. capacity to
respond to the needs of the present. resilience to cope with the
demands of the future to decide objectively, disengaging himself/
herself from every personal influence or predilections. The
Judges should adapt purposive interpretation of the dynamic
concepts under the Constitution and the act with its interpretive
G armoury to articulate the felt necessities of the time. Social
legislation is not a document for fastidious dialects but means of
ordering the life of the people. To construe law one must enter
into its spirit. its setting and history. Law should be capable to

H 20 (I 996) 3 sec 545
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 929
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

expand freedom of the people and the legal order can weigh A
with utmost equal care to provide the lmderpinning of the highly
inequitable social order. Judicial review must be exercised with
insight into social values to supplement the changing social needs.
The existing social inequalities or imbalances are required to be
removed readjusting the social order through rnle of law.... "
B
The learned Attorney General then submitted, that in paragraph 20 of
the Valsamma Pa:ul case 20 , it was noted, that various Hindu practices
which were not in tune with the times, had been done away with, in the
interest of promoting equality and fraternity. In paragraph 21 of the
above judgment, this Court had emphasized the need to divorce religion C
from 'personal law'. And in paragraph 22, a mention was made about
the need to foster a national identity, which would not deny pluralism of
Indian culture, but would rather preserve it. Relevant extracts of the
aforesaid judgment relied upon during the course of hearing, are
reproduced herein below:
''21. The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights D
and Directive Principles created secular State based on the
principle of equality and non-discrimination striking a balance
between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment
of the State to establish an egalitarian social order. Dr. K.M.>

Munshi contended on the floor of the Constituent Assembly that - E
"we want to divorce religion from personal law, from what may
be.called social relations, or from the rights of parties as regards
inheritance or succession. What have these things got to do with
religion, I fail to understand? We are in a stage where we must
unify and consolidate the nation by every means without·
interfering with religious practices. If. however, in the past, F
religious practices have been so constrned as to cover the whole
field of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot
down and say that these matters are not religion, they are purely
· matters for secular legislation. Religion must be restricted to
spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of G
life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner
that we may evolve, as early as possible. a stniilg and consolidated
- nation" (Vide: Constituent Assembly Debates; Vol. VII 356-8) .
.22. In the onward march of establishing an egalitarian secular ·
social order based on equality and dignity of person, Article H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 12ill prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or caste
identities so as to foster national identity which does not deny
pluralism oflndian culture but rather to preserve it. Indian culture
is a product or blend of several strains or elements derived from
various sources, in spite of inconsequential variety of forms and
types. There is unity of spirit informing Indian culture throughout
B
the ages. It is this underlying unity which is one of the most
remarkable everlasting and enduring feature of Indian culture
that fosters unity in diversity among different populace. This
generates and fosters cordial spirit and toleration that make
possible the unity and continuity oflndian traditions. Therefore,
c it would be the endeavour of everyone to develop several identities
which constantly interact and overlap, and prove ameeting point
for all members of different religious communities. castes, sections,
sub-sections and regions to promote rational approach to life
and society and would establish a national composite and
cosmopolitan culture and way oflife."
D
66. It was also asserted, that patriarchal values and traditional
notions about the role of women in society, were an impediment to the
goal for achieving social democracy. In this behalf it was contended,
that gender inequity impacts not only women, but had a ripple effect on
the rest of the community, preventing it from shaking out of backwardness
E and paiiaking to the full, liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.
Citizens from all communities, it was submitted, had the right to the
enjoyment of all the constitutional guarantees, and if some sections of
society were held back, it was likely to hold back the community at
large, resulting in a lopsided development, with pockets of social
F backwardness. According to the learned Attorney General, this kind of
lopsided development was not in the larger interest of the integrity and
development of the nation. It was submitted, that secularism, equality
and fraternity being the overarching guiding principles of all communities,
must be given effect to. This would move the entire citizenry forward,
guaranteeing to women equal rights, and at the same time, preserving
G diversity and plurality.
67. It was the emphatic assertion of the learned Attorney General,
that freedom ofreligion was subservient to fundamental rights. It was
contended in this behalf, that the words employed in Article 25(1) of the
Constitution, which conferred the right to practice, preach and propagate
H
. SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF 'INDIA AND OTHERS 931
. [JAGDISH SINGH K.HEHAR, CJI] . ·
' ,

religion wete "subject to the provisions of this Part", which meant that A
_the above rights are subject to Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality
and mm-discrimination. In other words, ilnder Inc,lia 's secular Constitution,
·the right to freedom of religion was subject to, and in that sense,
subservient to other fundamental rights - such as the right to equality,
·. the right to non-discrimination, and the right to life with dignity. In this B
behalf reference was made to Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of
Mysore21 • In this judgment, it was submitted, that this Court considered
the meaning of the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Part" in
Article 25( l) to conclude, that the other provisions of the Part would
"prevail over" and would "control the right conferred" by A11icle 25( l ).
68. In the above context it was also submitted, that the freedom C
of religion, expressed in Article 25 of the Constitution was, not confined
to the male gender. Article 25 is extracted below:.
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion. - (1) Subject to public order, morality.
and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are D
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
· profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operatioirnf any existing
law or prevent the State from making any law -
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or E
other secular activity which may be associatec,l with religious
practice;
., (b) providing fo~ social welfare and reform or the throwing open. I'
of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes -
and sections of Hindus. p
Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be
deemed to be included in the professism of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus
shall be constmed as including a reference to persons professing
the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu· G
religious institutions shall be construed accordingly."
It was highlighted, that it was also necessary to note, that Article 25( 1)
provides that "all" persons were "equally" entitled to the freedom of
conscience, ·and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion.
21
1958 SCR 895 H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A This, according to the learned Attorney General, should be understood
to mean, that the rights conferred by this article were equally available
to women, and were not confined to men alone. Therefore, it was
contended, that any patriarchal or one sided interpretation of religion (or
a practice ofreligion), ought not to be countenanced.
B 69. It was emphasised by the learned Attorney General, that it
was necessary to draw a line between religion per se, and religious
practices. It was submitted, that the latter were not protected under
Article 25. "Religion", according to the learned Attorney General, has
been explained by this Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of
C A.P. 2\ as under:
"86. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs
and doctrine which are regarded by those who profess religion
to be conducive to their spiritual well-being. A religion is not
merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has outward expression
in acts as well. It is not every aspect of religion that has been
D saf~guarded by Articles 25 and 26 nor has the Constitution
provided that every religious activity cannot be interfered with.
Religion, therefore, cannot be constrned in the context ofArticles
25 and 26 in its strict and etymological sense. Every religion
must believe in a conscience and ethical and moral precepts.
E Therefore, whatever binds a man to his own conscience and
whatever moral or ethical principles regulate the lives of men
believing in that theistic, conscience or religious belief that alone
can constitute religion as understood in the Co11stitution which
fosters feeling of brotherhood, amity, fraternity and equality of
all persons which find their foothold in secular aspect of the
F Constitution. Secular activities and aspects do not constitute
religion which brings under its own cloak every human activity.
There is nothing which a man can do, whether in the way of
wearing clothes or food or drink, which is not considered a
religious activity. Every mundane or human activity was not
G intended to be protected by the Constitution under the guise of
religion. The approach to construe the protection of religion or
matters of religion or religious practices guaranteed by Articles
25 and 26 must be viewed with pragmatism since by the very
nature of things, it would be extremely difficult, ifnot impossible.

H "< 1996) 9 sec 548
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 933
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

to define the expression religion or matters ofreligion or religious A
belief or practice. ··
87. In pluralistic society like India, as stated ·earlier, there are
numerous religious grmips who practise diverse forms of worship
or practise religions, rituals, rites. etc., even among Hindus,
different denominants and sects residing within the country or B
abroad profess different religious faiths, beliefs, practices. They
seek to identify religion with what may in substance .be mere
facets ofreligion. It would. therefore. be difficult to devise a·
definition ofreligion which would be regarded as applicable to
all religions or matters of religious practices. To one· class of
persons a ·mere dogma or precept or a doctrine may be C
predominant in the matter of religion; to others, rituals or
ceremonies may be predominant facets of religion; and to yet
another class or persons a code of conduct or a mode of life
may constitute religion. Even to different persons professing
the same religious faith some of the facets or religion may have· D
varying significance. It may not be possible, therefore, to devise
a precise definition ofuniversal application as to what is religion .
and what are matters of religious belief or religious practice.
That is far from saying that it is not possible to state. with
r~asonable certainty the limits within which the Constitution
conferred a right to profess religion. Therefore, the right to religion E
guaranteed under Article 25 or 26 is not an absolute or unfettered
right to propagating religion which is subject to legislation by the
State limiting or regulating any activity...: economic, financial,
political or secular which are associated with religious belief.
faith, practice or custom. They are subject.to reform on social F
;
welfare by appropriate legislation by the State. Though religious
practices and performances of acts in pursuance of religious
beliefare as much a part of religion as faith or belief in a particular
doctrine. that by itself is not conclusive or decisive. What are
essential parts of religion or religious belief or matters or religion
and religious practice is essentially a question of fact to be
considered in the context in which the question has arisen and
the evidence - factual or legislative or historic - presented in
that context is required to be considered and a decision reached."

H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A In order to support the above view, the Comt's attention was also drawn
to the Javed case 10 , wherein this Court observed as under :
"49. In State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali [AIR 1952 Bom
84:53 Cri LJ 354] the constitutional validity of the Bombay
Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act (25 of 1946) was
B challenged on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 15 and 25 of
the Constitution. A Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice
Chagla and Justice Gajendragadkar (as His Lordship then was),
held:
"A sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and
c belief and religious practices. What the State protects is religious
faith and belief. If religious practices nm counter to public order,
morality or health or a policy of social welfare upon which the
State has embarked, then the religious practices must give way
before the good of the people of the State as a whole."

Q 50. Their Lordships quoted from American decisions that the
laws are made for the governance of actions, and while they
cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they
may with practices. Their Lordships found it difficult to accept
the proposition that polygamy is an integral part of Hindu religion
though Hindu religion recognizes the necessity of a son for
E religious efficacy and spiritual salvation. However, proceeding
on an assumption that polygamy is a recognized institution
according to Hindu religious practice, Their Lordships stated in
no uncertain terms:
"The right of the State to legislate on questions relating to marriage
F cannot be disputed. MaITiage is undoubtedly a social institution
an institution in which the State is vitally interested. Although
there may not be universal recognition of the fact, still a very
large volume of opinion in the world today admits that monogamy
is a very desirable and praiseworthy institution. If, therefore, the
G State of Bombay compels Hindus to become monogamists, it is
a measure of social refom1, and if it is a measure of social reform
then the State is empowered to legislate with regard to social
reform under Article 25(2)(b) notwithstanding the fact that i~
may interfere with the right of a citizen freely to profess, practise
and propagate religion."
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTI:JERS 935 .
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] ~,.

It was further submitted; that practices such as 'polygamy cannotbe·· A
described as being sanctioned by religion, inasmuch as; historically
polygamy prevailed across communities for several centuries, including
the ancient Greeks and Romans, Hindus, Jews and. Zoroastrians-. It was
pointed out, that polygamy had less to do with religion, and more to do
with social norms of that time. In the Quran as well, it was contended,
it appears that the prevalence (or perhaps, rampant practice) of polygamy B '
in pre-Islamic society, was sought to be regulated and restricted, so as to
treat women better than they were treated in pre-Islamic times. It was
submitted, that the practice of polygamy was a social practice rather
than a religious one, and therefore, would not be protected underArticle
25. It was sought to be explained, that 'talaq-e-biddat' was similarly a C
practice never clearly recognized, nor was it seen with favour, and needed
to be examined in the background of the above narrated historic position.
70. In order to be able to seek interference, with reference to the
issue canvassed, and in order to surmount the legal object in advancing
his contentions, the learned Attorney General pointed out, that there was D
an apparent misconstruction, which had led to the conclusions drawn by
the Bombay High Court, in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali 23 • It ·
was submitted, that 'personal laws' ought to be examined, in the light of
the overarching goal of gender justice, and dignity of women. The
underlying idea behind the preservation of 'personal laws' was, to
safeguard the plurality and diversity among the people oflndia. However, E
the sustenance of such diverse identities, according to the learned
Attorney General, cannot be a pretext for denying women their rigiltful
statu~ and gender equality. It was submitted, that 'personal law' was a
part and parcel of"law" within the meaning of Article 13. And therefore,
any such law ('personal law') which was inconsistent with fundamental F
rights, would have to be considered void. It was further submitted, that
tlJe interpretation of the Bombay High Court in the Narasu Appa Mali
case 23 , to the effect that Article 13 of the Constitution, would not cover
'personal laws' warranted reconsideration. Firstly, it was contended,
that a reading of the plain language adopted in A1iicle 13 would clearly
establish that 'personal law', as well as customs and usages, were covered G
within the scope of"law". Article 13 reads as under:
"13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental
rights.-
" AIR 1952 Born. 84 H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before
the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent
of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges
B the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention
of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise reguires,-
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the
c force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature
or other competent authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not
D be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this
Constitution made under article 368."
It was submitted, that the meaning of "law" as defined in clauses (2)
~nd {3) of Article 13 is not exhaustive, and should be read as if it
E
encompassed within its scope, 'personal law' as well. It was submitted,
that under clause (2) of Article 246 of the Constitution, Parliament and
State Legislatures had the power to make laws, also on the subject
enumerated in entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule,
pertaining to "Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills;
F intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect
of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law." Since
the subjects expressed in entry 5 aforementioned, were relatable to
'personal law', therefore, 'personal law', according to the learned
Attorney General, was liable to include law within the meaning of sub-
G clause (a) of clause (3) ofArticle 13 of the Constitution. The observations
of the Bombay High Court in the Narasu Appa Mali case23, it was
contended, were contrary to the plain language ofArticle 13. Secondly,
it was submitted, the plain language of Article 13(3)(a) which defines
"law'.' as including "any ... custom or usage having in the territory of
H India the force oflaw", left no room for any doubt, on the issue. It was
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 937
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

pointed out, that the observations in the Narasu Appa Mali case23 , were A
in the nature of obiter. and could not be considered as the<ratio of the
judgment. Further more, the said judgment, being a judgment of a High
Court, was not binding on this Court. Without prejudice to the above,
according to the learned Attorney General, the said practices under
challenge had been incorporated into the Muslim 'personal law' by the
Shariat Act. It was reasoned, that the Shariat Act, was clearly a "law in B
force", within the meaning of Article 13(3)(b). It was submitted, that
the petitioner has challenged Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, insofar as it
recognises and validates the practices of triple talaq or talaq-e-biddai
(nikah halal a and polygamy). Therefore, even assuming (for the sake of
argument), that these practices do not constitute customs, the same were C
nonetheless manifestly covered by Article 13.
71. It was acknowledged, that the legal position expressed in the
Narasu Appa Mali case23 had been affirmed by this Court, on various
occasions. Rather than recording the learned Attorney General's
submissions in our words, we would extract the position acknowledged I)
in the written submissions filed on behalf ofthe Uni.on oflndia, in this
matter, below:
"(e) Pertinently, despite this ruling that was later followed in
Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, (1981) 3 SCC 689 and Maharslii
Avdhesh v. Unionoflndia, (1994) Supp (1) SCC713, the Supreme E
Court has actively tested personal laws on the touchstone of
fundamental rights in cases such as Daniel Lat!fi v. Union of
India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 (5-Judge Bench), Mohd. Ahmed Khan
v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 (5-Judge Bench), John
Vallan1atom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611 (3-Judge Bench)
etc. Furher, in Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri F
Swaminathaswami Thirukoil, (1996) 8 SCC 525, ..... "
However, reference was nevertheless made to the Masilamani Mudaliar
case 16, wherein, it was submitted, that this Court had adopted a contrary
position to the Narasu Appa Mali case23 and had held, "But the right to
equality, removing handicaps and discrimination against a Hindu female G c

by reason of operation of existing law should be in conformity with the
right to equality enshrined in the Constitution and the personal law also
needs to be in conformity with the constitutional goal." It was also asserted,
that this Court had further held, "Personal laws are derived not from the
Constitution but from the religious scriptures. The laws thus derived H
. 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A must be consistent with the Constitution lest they become void under
Article 13 if they violate fundamental rights." It is significant to note,
that this case concerned the inheritance rights of Hindu women. In
view of the aforesaid, it was submitted, that the observations in the
Narasu Appa Mali case' 3, that 'personal law' was not covered. under
Article 13, was incorrect and not binding upon this Court.
B
72. It was also contended, that the Constitution undoubtedly
accords guarantee of faith and belief to every citizen, but every practice
of faith could not be held to be an integral part of religion and belief. It
was therefore submitted, that every sustainable (and enforceable)
religious practice, must satisfy the overarching constitutional goal, of
c gender equality, gender justice and dignity. It was asserted, that the
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat ', could not be regarded as a part of any
"essential religious practice", and as such, could not be entitled to the
protection ofArticle 25. The test of what amounts to an essential religious
practice, it was submitted, was laid down in a catena of judgments
D including Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt24 , wherein this Court held
asunder:
"20. The contention formulated in such broad terms cannot, we
think, be supported. In the first place, what constitutes the
E essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with
reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of
any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food
§hould be given to the idol at particular hours of the day. that
periodical ceremonies should be performed in a ce1tain way at
certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of
F sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these would be
regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve
expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or
the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular
activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all
G of them are religious practices and shoi1ld be regarded as matters
of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b ). What Article
25(2)(a) contemplates is not regulation by the State of religious
practices as such, the freedom of which is guaranteed by the
Constitution except when they run counter to public order, health
H 24
AIR 1954 SC 282
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 939
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

and morality but regulation of activities which are economic, A
commercial or political in their character though they are
associated with religious practices. We may refer in this
connection to a few American and Australian cases, all of which
arose out of the activities ofoersons connected with the religious
association known as "Jehova's Witnesses"; This association of
B
persons loosely organised throughout Australia, U.S.A. and other
countries regard the literal interpretation of the Bible as
fundamental to proper religious beliefs. This belief in the supreme
authority of the Bible colours many of their political ideas. They
refuse to take oath of allegiance to the king or other constituted
human authority and even to show respect to the national flag, C
and they decry all wars between nations and all kinds of war
activities. In 1941 a company of "Jehova's Witnesses"
incorporated in Australia commenced proclaiming and !~aching
matters which were prejudicial to war activities and the defence
of the Commonwealth-and steps were taken against them under D
the National Security Regulations of the State. The legality of
the action of the Government was questioned by means of a
writ petition before the High Court and the High Court held that
the action of the Government was justified and that Section 116,
which guaranteed freedom of religion under the Australian
Constitution, was not in any way infringed by the National Security E
Regulations (Vide Adelaide Company v. Conunonwealth, 67 CLR
116, 127). These were undoubtedly political activities though
arising out of religious belief entertained by a particular
community. In such cases, as Chief Justice Latham pointed out,
the provision. for protection of religion was not an absolute
F
protection to be interpreted and applied independently of other
· provisions of the Constitution. These privileges must be reconciled
with the right of the State to employ the sovereign power to
ensure peace, security and orderly living without which
constitutional guarantee of civil liberty would be a mockery."
Reference was then made to Ratilal v. State of Bombay25 , wherein it G
was observed as under:
"13. Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance
of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief
"AIR 1954 SC 388
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

'
A in particular doctrines. Thus if the tenets of the Jain or the Parsi
religion lay down that certain rites and ceremonies are to be
performed at certain times and in a particular manner, it cannot
be said that these are secular activities partaking of commercial .
or economic character simply because they involve expenditure
of money or employment of priests or the use of marketable
B
commodities. No outside authority has any right to say that these
are not essential parts of religion and it is not open to the secular
authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them in any manner
they like under the guise of administering the trust estate. Of
course, the scale of expenses to be incurred in connection with
c these religious observances may be and is a matter of
administration of property belonging to religious institutions; and
if the expenses on these heads are likely to deplete the endowed
properties or affect the stability of the institution, proper control
can certainly be exercised by State agencies as the law provides.
We may refer in this connection to the observation of Davar, J.
D
in the case of Jamshed ji v. Soonabai [33Born1221 and although
they were made in a case where the question was whether the
bequest of property by a Parsi testator for the purpose of
perpetual celebration of ceremonies like Muktad baj, Vyezashni,
etc., which are sanctioned by the Zoroastrian religion were valid
E charitable gifts, the observations, we think, are quite appropriate
for our present pm:pose. "If this is the belief of the community"
thus observed the learned Judge, "and it is proved undoubtedly
to be the belief of the Zoroastrian community,-a secular Judge
is bound to accept that belief-it is not for him to sit in judgment
on that belief, he has no right to interfere with the conscience of
F
a donor who makes a gift in favour of what he believes to be the
advancement of his religion and the welfare of his community or
mankind". These observations do, in our opinion. afford an
indication of the measure of protection that is given by Article
26(b) of our Constitution."
G Our attention was also drawn to Qureshi v. State of Bihar26 , wherein
this Court held as under:
"13. Coming now fo the arguments as to the violation of the
petitioners' fundamental rights, it will be convenient to take up
H · "AlR 1958 SC 731
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 941
[JAGDlSH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

first the complaint founded on Article 25(1 ). That article rnns as A
follows:
"Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
·provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and
propagate religion." B
After referring to the provisions of clause (2) which lays down
certain exceptions which are not material for our present purpose
this Court has, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of
Bombay [(1954) SCR 1055, 1062-1063] explained the meaning
and scope of this article thus: C
"Thus. subject to the restrictions which this article imposes. eveiy
person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely
to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his
·judgment or conscience but to exhibit his belief and section also
violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners ideas in such D
overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further
to propagate his religious views for the edification of others. It is ·
immaterial also whether the propagation is made by a person in
his individual capacity or on behalf of any church or institution.
The free exercise of religion by which is meant the performance
of outward acts in pursuance of religious belief, is. as stated E
above, subject to State regulation imposed to secure order. public
health and morals of the people."
What then, we inquire, are the materials placed before us to
substantiate the claim that the sacrifice of a cow is enjoined or
sanctioned by Islam? The materials before us are extremely F
meagre and it is surprising that on a matter of this description the
allegations in the petition should be so vague. In the Bihar Petition
· No. 58of1956 are set out the following bald allegations:
"That the petitioners further respectfully submit that the said
impugned guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution in~as- G
much as on the occasion of their Bakr Id Day, it is the religious
practice of the petitioners' communitv to sacrifice a cow on the
said occasion. The poor members of the community usually
sacrifice one cow for eveiy 7 members whereas it would require
one sheep or one goat for each member which would entail
H
I
·'
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A considerably more expense. As a result of the total ban imposed
by the impugned section the petitioners would not even be allowed
to make the said sacrifice which is a practice and custom in their
religion. enjoined upon them by the Holy Quran. and practised
by all Muslims from time immemorial and recognised as such in
India."
B
The allegations in the other petitions are similar. These are met
by an equally bald denial in paragraph 21 of the affidavit in
opposition. No affidavit has been filed by any person specially
competent to expound the relevant tenets oflslam. No reference
is made in the petition to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran
c which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow. All that was
placed before us during the argument were Surah XXll, Verses
28 and 33, and Surah CVIII. What the Holy book enjoins is that
people should pray unto the Lord and make sacrifice. We have
no affidavit before us by any Maulana explaining the implications
D of those verses or throwing any light on this problem. We,
however, find it laid down in Hamilton's translation ofHedaya
Book XLIII at p. 592 that it is the duty of every free Mussulman,
arrived at the age of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the Yd
Kirban, or festival of the sacrifice. provided he be then possessed
ofNisab and be not a traveller. The sacrifice established for one
E person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel. It is
therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person
or a cow or a camel for seven persons. lt does not appear to be
obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow. The very fact of
an option seems to run counter to the notion of an obligat01y
F duty. It is, however, pointed out that a person with six other
members of his family may afford to sacrifice a cow but may
not be able to afford to sacrifice seven goats. So there may be
an economic compulsion although there is no religious compulsion.
It is also pointed out that from time immemorial the Indian
Mussalmans have been sacrificing cows and this practice. if not
G enjoined, is certainly sanctioned by their religion and it amounts
to their practice of religion protected by Article 25. While the
petitioners claim that the sacrifice of a cow is essential, the State
denies the obligatory nature of the religious practice. The fact.
emphasised by the respondents, cannot be disputed. namely, that
many Mussalmans do not sacrifice a cow on the Bakr Id Day. It
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 943
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

is part of the known history of India that the Moghul Emperor A
Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as
and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humavun
to follow this example. Similarly Emperors Akbar, Jehangir, and
Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibite<l'cow slaughter. Nawab Hyder
Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with B
the cutting of the hands of the offenders. Three of the members
of the Gosamvardhan Enguizy Committee set up by the Uttar
Pradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in
the unanimous recommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows.
We have, however, no material on the record before us which
will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the C
sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a
Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises.
it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners."
Learned Attorney General also cited, State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat 27, and placed reliance on the following D
observations:
"22. ln State of W.B. v. Ashutosh Lahiri [(1995) l SCC 189]
this Court has noted that sacrifice of any animal by Muslims for
the religious purpose on BakrI'd does not include slaughtering
of cows as the only way of carrying out that sacrifice.
Slaughtering of cows on Bakr!' dis neither essential to nor E
necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional
religious practice is not covered byA1iicle 25(1). On the contrary,
it is common knowledge that the cow and its progeny i.e. bull,
bullocks and calves are worshipped by Hindus on specified days
during Diwali and other festivals like Makar F
Sankranti and Gopashtmi. A good number of temples are to be
found where the statue of "Nandi" or "Bull" is regularly"
· wor1ihipped. However, we do not propose to delve further into
the question as we must state, in all fairness to the learned counsel
for the parties, that no one has tried to build any argument either
in defence or in opposition to the judgment appealed against by G
placing reliance on religion or Article 25 of the Constitution."
Finally, our attention was invited to Sardar Syedna Taber Saifuddin Saheb
) v. State of Bombay28 , wherein it was observed as under:
\I
21
(2005) s sec 534
"AIR 1962 SC 853 H
I
. I
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

~

A "60. But very different considerations arise when one has to
deal with legislation which is claimed to be merely a measurf\
"providing for social welfare and reform". To start with, it has to
be admitted that this phrase is, as contrasted with the second
portion ofArticle 25(2)(b), far from precise and is flexible in its--
content. In this connection it has to be borne in mind that
B
limitations imposed on religious practices on the ground of public
order, morality or health have already been saved by the opening
words of Article 25(1) and the saving would cover beliefs and
practices even though considered essential or vital by those
professing the teligion. I consider that in the context in which the
c phrase occurs. it is intended to save the validity only of those
_laws which do not invade the basic and essential practices of
religion which are guaranteed by the operative portion of Article
!25(1) for two reasons: (J) To read the saving as covering even
the basic essential practices of religion, would in effect nullify
and render meaningless the entire guarantee of religious freedom
D
:- a freedom not merely to profess. but to practice religion, for
very few pieces oflegislation for abrogating religious practices
could fail to be subsumed under the caption of "a provision for
social welfare or reform". (2) If the phrase just quoted was
intended to have such a wide operation as cutting at even the
E essentials guaranteed by Article 25( 1), there would have been
no need for the special provision as to "throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions" to alJ classes and sections of Hindus since
the legislation contemplated by this provision would be par
excellence one of social reform."
f 73. It was pointed out, that in the counter-affidavit dated August
2016, filed on behalfofthe Muslim Personal Law Board, i.e., respondent
no.3 to this petition, the practices of triple talaq (as well as, 'nikah halala'
and polygamy) have been referred to as "undesirable". It was accordingly
· submitted, that no "undesirable" practice can be conferred the status of
an "essential practice", much less one that forms the substratum of the
G concerned religion.
74. It was asserted on behalf of the Union oflndia, that the Indian
State was obligated to adhere to the principles enshrined in international
covenants, to which it is a party. India being a founding member of the
United Nations, is bound by its Charter, which embodies the first ever
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 945
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

international agreement to proclaiming gender equality, as a human right A
in its preamble, and reaffirming faith in fimdamental human rights, through
the dignity of the human person, by guaranteeing equal rights to men and
women~ It was submitted, that significantly, the United Nations
Commission on the Status of Women, first met in February, 1947, with
15 member States - all represented by women, including India B
(represented through Shareefah Hamid Ali). During its very first session,
the Commission declared its guiding principles, including the pledge to
raise the status of women, irrespective ofnationality, race, language or
relig~on, to the sanie level as men, in all fields of human enterprise, and
to eliminate all discrimination against women in the provisions of statutory
law, in legal maxims or rules, or in interpretation of customary law. (United C
Nations Commission on the Status of Women, First Session, E/281/Rev. l,
February 25, 1947). It was submitted, that the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948, the. International Covenant of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 1966 and the International Covenant of Social and
Political Rights, 1966, emphasized on equality between men and women. D
The other relevant international instruments on women which were
brought to our notice, included the Convention on the Political Rights of
_,- Women (1952), Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children
in Emergency and Armed Conflict ( 1974), Inter-American Convention
for the Prevention, Punishment and Elimination of Violence against
.Women (1955), Universal Declaration on Democracy (1997), and the E
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (1999). It was submitted by the learned
Attorney· General, that the Government of India ratified the Vienna
Declaration and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CED AW) on 19-6-1993. The preamble
F
of CED AW reiterates, that discrimination against women violated the
principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity. And that,
such inequality was an obstacle to the participation gn equal terms with
men in the political, social, economic and cultural lif~ o(their country. It
was emphasized that such inequality, also hampered the growth of the
personality from society and family, and made it more difficult for the G
full deveiopment of potentialities of women, in the service of their
countries and of humanity. Article l of the CEDAW, it was pointed out,
defines discrimination against women, while Article 2(b) enjoins the State
parties to pursue elimination of discrimination against women, by adopting
"appropriate legislative and other measures including sanctions where
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A appropriate, prohibiting all discriminations against women". Clause (c)
of Article 2 enjoins the ratifying States, to ensure legal protection of the
rights of women, and Article 3 of the CEDAW enjoins the States to take
all appropriate measures to ensure full development and advancement
of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing to them, the exercise and
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of
B
equality with men. It was further submitted on behalf of the Union of
India, that the equality principles were reaffirmed in the Second World
Conference on Human Rights, held at Vienna in June 1993, as also, in
the Fourth World Conference on Women, held at Beijing in 1995. It was
pointed out, that India was a party to this convention and other
c declarations, and was committed to actualize them. It was asserted,
that in the 1993 Conference, gender-based violence and all categories
of sexual harassment and exploitation, were condemned.
75. Last of all, the Attorney General pointed out, the prevailing
international trend all around the world, wherein the practice of divorce
D through 'talaq-e-biddat', has been statutorily done away with (-for details,
refer to Part-5 - Abrogation of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by
legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States).
On the basis of the submissions noticed above, it was contended, that it
was extremely significant to note, that a large number of Muslim countries,
or countries with a large Muslim populations such as, Pakistan,
E Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt,
Iran and Sri Lanka had undertaken significant reforms and had regulated
divorce law. It was pointed out, that legislation in Pakistan requires a
man to obtain the permission of an Arbitration Council. Practices in
Bangladesh, it was pointed out, were similar to those in Pakistan. Tunisia
F and Turkey, it was submitted, also do not recognize extra-judicial divorce,
of the nature of 'talaq-e-biddat'. In Afghanistan, divorce where three
pronouncements are made in one sitting, is considered to be invalid. In
Morocco and Indonesia, divorce proceedings take place in a secular
court, procedures of mediation and reconciliation are encouraged, and
men and women are considered equal in matters of family and divorce.
G In Indonesia, divorce is a judicial process, where those marrying under
Islamic Law, can approach the Religious Court for a divorce, while others
can approach District Courts for the same. In Iran and Sri Lanka, divorce
can be granted by a Qazi and/or a court, only after reconciliation efforts
have failed. It was submitted, that even Islamic theocratic States, have
H undergone reforn1 in this area of the law, and therefore, in a secular
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF IND.IA AND OTHERS 947
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

j republic like India, there is no reason to deny women, the rights available
all across the Muslim world. The fact that Muslim·countries have
A

J undergone extensive reform, it was submitted, also establishes that the
practice in question is not an essential religious practice.
76. In the circumstance aforesaid, it was submitted, that the
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' cannot be protected under Article 25(1) of B
the Constitution. Furthermore, since Article 25(1) is subject to Part Ill
of the Constitution, as such, it was liable to be in consonance with, and
not violative of the rights conferred through Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution. Since the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' clearly violates the
fundamental rights expressed in the above Articles, it was submitted, C
that it be declared as unconstitutional.
77. It is also necessary for us to recount an interesting incident
that occurred during the course of hearing. The learned Attorney General
having assisted this Court in the manner recounted above, was emphatic
that the other procedures available to Muslim men for obtaining divorce,
such as, 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan' were also liable to be declared D
as unc<Jnstitutional, for the same reasons as have been expressed with
reference to 'talaq-e-biddat'. ln this behalf, the contention advanced
was, that just as 'talaq-e-biddat', 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan'
were based on the unilateral will of the husband, neither of these forms
of divorce required the availability of a reasonable cause with the husband E
to divorce his wife, and neither of these needed the knowledge and/or
notice of the wife, and in neither of these procedures the knowledge
and/or consent of the wife was required. And as such, the other two so-
called approved procedures of divorce ('talaq-e·ahsan' and 'talaq-e-
1_, hasan') available to Muslim men, it was submitted, were equally arbitrary
and unreasonable, as the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'. It was pointed F
out, that submissions during the course of hearing were confined by the
, Union oflndia, to the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' merely because this ·
Court, at the commencement of hearing, had infonned the parties, that
the present hearing would be limited to the examination of the prayer
made by the petitioners and the interveners on the validity of 'talaq-e- G
biddat'. It .was contended, that the challenge to 'talaq-e-ahsan' and
'talaq-e-hasan' would follow irrunediately after this Court had rendered
its pronouncement with reference to 'talaq-e-biddat'. We have referred
to the incident, and considered the necessity to record it, because of the
response of the learned Attorney General to a query raised by the Bench.
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A One of us (U.U. Lalit, J.), enquired from the learned Attorney General,
that if all the three procedures referred to above, as were available to
Muslim men to divorce their wives, wtire set aside as unconstitutional,
Muslim men would be rendered remediless in matters of divorce? The
learned Attorney General answered the querry in the affirmative. But
assured the Court, that the Parliament would enact a legislation within
B
no time, laying down grounds on which Muslim men could divorce their
wives. We have accordingly recorded the above episode, because it
has relevance to the outcome of the present matter.
78. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learnedAdditional Solicitor General of India,
endorsed all the submissions and argun1ents, advanced by the learned
C Attorney General. On each aspect of the matter, the learned Additional
Solicitor General, independently supported the legal propositions
canvassed on behalf of the Union of India.
Part-8.
o The rebuttal of the petitioners' contentions:
79. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, were
first of all sought to be repudiated by the AIMPLB - re&-pondent no.8
(hereinafter referred to as the AIMPLB). Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior
Advocate, and a number of other learned counsel represented the
E AIMPLB. In order to lay down the foundation to the submissions sought
to be canvassed on behalf of the respondents, it was asserted, that
ceremonies performed at the time of birth of an individual, are in
consonance with the religious norms of the family to which the child is
born. And thereafter, in continuation each stage oflife during the entire
progression oflife, is punctuated by ceremonies. It was pointed out, that
F even the act of adoption of a child, in some other family, has religious
ceremonies. In the absence of such religious rituals, adoption is not valid.
It was submitted, that religious observances manifest an important
fundamental position, in the life of every individual. Such religious
observances, according to learned counsel, include the manner in which
G members ofa community were required to dress. Insofar as the Muslim
women are concerned, reference was made to 'burqa' or 'hijab' worn
by women, whereby women veil themselves, from the gaze of strangers.
All these observances, are matters of faith, of those professing the religion.
It was asserted, that those who profess the Muslim religion, follow the
edicts expressed in the Quran. It was submitted, that matrimony, is like
H any other stage in an individual's life. It has to be performed, in consonance
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 949
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

with the ceremonies relating thereto. So also, if a married couple decides A
to part ways, by way of divorce. It was pointed out, that express religious
ceremonies are observed even on an individual's death. It was submitted,
that all issues including custody and guardianship of children, maintenance,
dower, gifts and such like issues, were matters guided by the faith of the
people, associated to their religion. How property has to be distributed, B
upon divorce and/or at the time of death, is also governed by faith. It
was submitted, that questions ofinheritance and succession, were likewise
dealt with in consonance with the edicts of the individual's religion. All
these issues, it was submitted, were matters of religious faith.
80. It was pointed out, that the personal affairs referred to in the
foregoing paragraph, fall in the realm of 'personal law'. This assertion, c
was sought to be demonstrated, by placing reliance. on the definition of
the term 'personal law' in Blacks Law Dictionary (IO'h edition, 2014), as
follows:
"The law that governs a person's family matters, regardless of
where the person goes. In common law systems, personal law D
refers to the law of the person's domicile. In civil-law systems,
it refers to the law of the individual's nationality {and so is
sometimes called lex patriae ). "
Reference was also made to the definition of the term 'personal law' in
'Conflict of Laws 188' (7'h edition, 1974) by R.H. Graveson, who defined E
the term as under:
· "The idea of the personal law is based on the conception of man
as a social being, so that those transactions of his daily life which
affect him most closely in a personal sense, such as marriage,
divorce, legitimacy, many kinds of capacity, and succession, may
·be governed universally by that system of law deemed most F
suitable and adequate for the purpose ... "
Based on the cumulative definition of the term 'personal law', it was
submitted, that the evolution of the matters of faith relating to religious
practices, must necessarily be judged in the context of practices adopted
by·the concerned community, with reference to each individual aspect G
of 'personal law'. It was conceded, on behalf of the AIMPLB, that
'personal laws' were per se subservient to legislation, and as such,
'personal laws' were liable to be considered as mandatory, with reference
to numerous aspects of an individual's life, only in the absence of
legislation. H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 81. Even though it was acknowledged, that legislation on an issue
would override 'personal law' on the matter, it was pointed out, that in
the absence oflegislation 'personal laws' in the Indian context, could not
be assailed on the basis of their being in conflict with any of the provisions
contained in Part III of the Constitution - the Fundamental Rights. It
was submitted, that in the absence of statutory law, religious practices
B
and faith, constituted the individual's (belonging to a community) right to
profess the same. In order to substantiate his contention, that a challenge
to 'personal law' could not be raised on the anvil of Articles 14, 15 and
21 of the Constitution, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the
Narasu Appa Mali case2 3 • Learned senior counsel, also placed reliance
c on Shri Krishna Singh v. MathuraAhir2 9, wherein this Court arrived at
the conclusion, that the rights of 'sudras' (the lowest amongst the four
Hindu castes - members of the workers caste), as were expressed by
the Smriti (-refers to a body of Hindu texts, traditionally recorded in
writing) writers, were invalid because they were in conflict with the
D fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It was
submitted, that both the above judgments were considered by this Court
in Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India 30 , wherein, the
legal position recorded in the above judgments was confirmed. It was
pointed out, that there was a clear distinction between 'law' and 'law in
force', thus far interpreted by this Court with reference to Article 13 of
E the Constitution. It was asserted, that read along with Article 372 -
which mandates, that all laws in force in the territory of India, immediately
before the commencement of the Constitution, would continue to remain
in force, until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or
other competent authority. It was submitted, that to affect a change in
'personal law', it was imperative to embark on legislation, as provided
F
for through entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule,
which provides - "marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption;
wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in
respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before
the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law." It
G was therefore urged, that 'personal laws' per se were not subject to
challenge, under any of the provisions contained in Part Ill of the
Constitution.
82. It was contended, that the. expression 'custom and usage' in
"(198IJ 3 sec 689
H io (I997J 3 sec 573
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ·951
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Article 13 ofthe Constitution, would not include faith of religious A
denominations, embedded in their '_personal law'. Insofar as the instant
aspect of the matter is concerned, reference was also made to Section '--· .
112 of the Gove~ment of Itidia Act, 1915; wherein a clear distinction
·was sought ·to be.drawn between 'personal laws' and 'customs having
force of law'. Section 112, aforementioned is extracted hereunder:
' _, B
"112. Law to be administered in cases of inheritance and
succession. - The high courts at Calcutta, Madras and_ Bombay,
in the exercise of their original jurisdiction in suits against
inhabitants of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay, as the case may be,
shall, in maters of inheritance and succession to lands, rents and C
goods, and in matters of contract and dealing between party and
party. when both parties are subject to the same personal law or
custom having the force oflaw. decide according to that personal
law or custom. and when the parties are subject to different
personal laws or customs having the force of law, decide
according to the law or custom to which the defendant is subject." D
it was pointed out;that in framing Article 13, the choice of the words -
"custom and usage" and the exclusi_on of the expression "personal law"
needed to be taken due note of. It was submitted, that the Constituent
Assembly was aware of the use ofthe term 'personallaw' (-which it
consciously used in entry ) of the Concurrent List, in the Seventh . E
Schedule) and the term 'customs and usages', which the Constituent
Assembly, employed while framing Article B of the Constitution. It
was pointed out, that the above position was consciously highlighted by
a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Youth Welfare
Feden\tion case 31 • It was submitted, that ifthe term 'personal law' was
excluded from the definition 'law in force' deployed in Article 13, then F
. matters of faith having a ditect relationship to some religious denomination
(matters of 'personal law'), do not have to satisfy the rights enumerated
in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In the above view of the
matter, it was contended, that the challenge raised on behalf of the
petitioners on the basis of the provisions contained in Part III - G
Fundamental Rights, needed to be summarily rejected
83. Having presented the aforesaid overview of the constitutional
position Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, endeavoured to deal
with the concept of'talaq' in' Shariat' - Muslim 'personal law'. Learned
31
(1996) ALT 1138(- Writ Petition No. 9717 ofl983, decided on 9.10.1996) H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A senior counsel pointed out, that religious denominations in India with
reference to Islam were divided into two categories - the Sunnis, and
the Shias. It was pointed out, that Sunnis were again sub-divided into
religious denominations/schools. The four prominent Sunni schools
being - Hanafi, Malaki, Shafei and Hanbali. It was submitted, that a
fifth schooVdenomination had emerged later - Ahl-e-Hadith. It was
B
pointed out, that in India 90% of the Muslims amongst the Sunnis,
belonged to the Hanafi school. It was submitted, that Shia and the other
denominations of the Sunnis comprised a very small population of Muslims
in India.
84. Learned counsel emphasized, that the three forms of talaq -
c 'talaq-e-ahsan', 'talaq-e-hasan' and 'talaq-e-biddat' referred to by the
petitioners, during the course of hearing, were merely depicting the
procedure which a Muslim husband was required to follow, to divorce
his wife. It was pointed out, that none of these procedural forms, finds
a reference in the Quran. It was asserted, that none of these forms is
D depicted even in the 'hadith'. It was acknowledged, that 'hadiths' declared
talaq by itself, as not a good practice, and yet- recognized the factum of
talaq, and its legal sanctity. It was submitted, that talaq was accepted by
all believers of Islam. It was therefore contended, that it was absurd for
the petitioners to have submitted that the Quran alone, provided the details
with reference to which, and in the manner in which, talaq could be
E administered. It was therefore asserted, that a close examination of the
challenge raised by the petitioners would reveal that talaq as a concept
itself was not under challenge at the hands of the petitioners. It was
pointed out, that trnthfully the petitioners were merely assailing the course
adopted by Muslim men, in divorcing their wives through the 'talaq-e-
F biddat' procedure.
85. Learned counsel acknowledged the position adopted on behalf
of the petitioners, namely, that Islam represents (i) what is provided for
in the Quran, (ii) what was stated and practiced by the Prophet
Muhammad from time to time, and (iii) what was memorized and recorded
in the 'hadiths' which through centuries of generations, Muslim belief
G
represents what the Prophet Muhamad had said and practiced. It was
asserted, that the afore-stated parameters represent Islamic law being
practiced by Mulsims over centuries, which had become part of the
religious faith of various Muslim denominations/schools. This ambit of
recognized practices, according to learned counsel, falls within the sphere
H of Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 953
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

86. Learned senior counsel then attempted to highlight various A
verses from the Quran, to substantiate his contention. The same are set
out hereunder:
"i. Whatever 'Allah has passed on to His Messenger from the
people of the towns is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for
the kinsmen and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so B
that it may not circulate only between the rich among you. And
whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he
forbids you from, abstain (from it). And fear Allah. Indeed Allah
is severe in punishment. (Quran,Al-Hashr 59:71)
ii. 0 you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not c
tum away from Him whn you listen (to him). (Quran, Al-Anfal
8:20)
iii> We did not send any Messenger but to b~ obeyed by. the
leave of Allah. Had they, after having wronged themselves,
· come to you and sought forgiveness from Allah, and had the D
Messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would certainly
have found Allah Most-Relenting, Very-Merciful (Quran, Al-Nisa
4:64)
iv. That is because they were hostile to Allah and His Messenger;
and whoever becomes hostile to Allah and His Messenger, then, E
Allah is severe at punishment. (Quran, Al-Anfal 8: 13)
v. It is not open for a believing man or a believing woman, once
Allah and His messenger have deCided a thing, that they should
have a choice about their mattr; and whoever disobeys Allah
and His messenger, he indeed gets off the track, falling into an F
open error. (Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:36)
vi. Whoever breaks away with the Messenger after the right
path has become clear to him, and follows what is not the way
of the believers, we shall let him have what he chose, and We
shall admit him to Jahannam, which is an evil place to return. G
(Quran, Al-Nisa 4: 115)"
In addition to the above, reference was also made to the Quran with
respect to triple talaq. The same are set out hereunder: '
"i. Divorce is twice; then either to retain in all fairness, or to
release nicely. It is not lawful for you to take back anything H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

•
A from what you have given them, unless both apprehend that they·
would not be able to maintain the limits set by Allah. Now, if you
apprehend that they would not maintain the limits set by Allah,
then, there is no sin or them in what she gives up to secure her
release. These are the limits set by Allah. Therefore, do no~
exceed them. Whosoever exceeds the limits set by Allah, then, ·
B
those are the transgressors. (Quran, Al-Baqarah 2:229)
ii. Thereafter, if he divorces her, she shall no longer remain lawful
for him unless she marries a man other than him. Should he too
divorce her, then there is no sin on them in their returning to each
other, if they think they would maintain the limits set by Allah.
c These are the limits set by Allah that He makes clear to a people
who know (that Allah is alone capable of setting these limits.
(Quran, Al-Baqarah 2:229 and 230)
iii. When you have divorced women, and they have reached (the
end of) their waiting period, do not prevent them from marrying
D their husbands when they mutually agree with fairness. Thus,
the advice is given to everyone of you who believes inAllah and
in the Hereafter. This is more pure and clean for you. Allah
knows and you do not know. (Quran, Al-Baqarah, 2:232)
iv. 0 Prophet, when you people divorce women, divorce them at
E a time when the period oflddah may start. And count the period
of lddah, and fear Allah, your Lord. Do not expel them from
their houses, nor should they go out, unless they come up with a
clearly shameless act. These are the limits prescribed by Allah.
And whoever exceeds the limits prescribed by Allah wrongs his·
F own self. You do not know (what will happen in future); it may
be that Allah brings about a new situation thereafter. (Quran, Al-
Talaq, 65:1)"
· In order to demonstrate the complete picture, learned senior counsel
invited the Court's attention to the statements attributed to the Prophet
G Mohamad with reference to talaq which, according to learned counsel,
would have a bearing on the determination of the controversy in hand.
Th~ same are extracted as under:

"i. Salmah bidAbi Salmah narrated to his father that when Hafs
bin Mughaira resorted to Triple Talaq, the Prophet (Pbuh) held it
as valid. All the three pronouncements were made with a single
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 955
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

word so the Prophet (Pubh) separated her from him irrevocably. A
And it didn't reach to us that the Prophet (Pubh) rebuked him
· for that (Daraqutni, Kitab Al-Talaq wa Al"Khula wa Al-Aiyla,5/
23, Hadith number:3992)
· ii. Amas recpimts pm Muadh's authority: "l heard the Prophet
· (Pbuh) sying : 0 Muadh, whoever resorts to bidaa divorce, be it B
one, two or three. We will make his divorce effective. (Daraqutni,
5/81. Kitab al-Talaq wa Al-Khulawa aI-Aiyala, Hadith number:
4020)
iii. (When Abdullah Ibn Umar divorced his wife once while she
was having menses. The Prophet (Pbuh) asked him to retain his c
wife saying; 0 Ibn e Umar, Allah Tabarak wa taala didn't
· command like this: "You acted against Sunnah. And sunnah is
that you wait for Tuhar then divorce at every purity period. He
said so Prophet (Pbuh) Ordered me so I retained her. Then he
said to me: When she becomes pure divorce at that time or keep
(her) So Abdullah ibn Umar asked: "Had I resorted to Triple D
Talaq then, could I retain her?" The Prophet (Pbuh) replied:
"No, she would be separated from you and such an ction oyour
part would have been a sin" (Sunan Bayhaqi, 7/547, Hadith
number: 14955).
iv. Aishah Khathmiya was Hasan bin Ali's wife. When Ali was E
killed and Hasan bin Ali was made caliph. Hasan bin Ali visited
her and she congratulated him for the caliphate. Hasan bin Ali
replied, "you have expressed happiness over the killing of Ali.
So you are divorced thrice". She covered herself with her cloth
and said, "By Allah I did not mean this''. She stayed until her F.
iddat lapsed and she departed. Hasan bin Ali sent her the
remaining dower and a gift of twenty thousand dirhams. When
the messenger reached her and she saw the money she said
"this is a very small gift from the beloved from whom I have
been separated". When the messenger informed Hasan bin Ali·
about this he broke into tears saying, "Had I not heard from my G
father reporting from my grandfather that the Prophet (Pbuh)
said that whoever pronounced triple talaaq upon his wife,, she
will not be perinitted to him till the time.she marries a husband
other than he, I would have taken her back. (AI-Sunan AI-
. Kubra Iii Bayhaqi, Hadith number: 14492) H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A v. Uwaymar Ajlani complained to the Prophet (Pbuh) that he
had seen his wife committing adultery. His wife denied this
charge. In line with the Quranic command, the Prophet (Pbuh)
initiated "a proceeding for the couple. Upon the completion of
the process, Uwaymar said: "lf l retain her, l Will be taken as a
liar". So in the Prophet's presence, and without the Prophet's
B
command, he pronounced Triple Talaq. (Sahi al-Bukhari Kitab
al-Talaq, Hadith number: 5259)"
87. Having dealt with the verses from the Quran and the
statements attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, learned senior counsel
invited the Court's attention to 'hadiths', in relation to talaq. The sa'me
C are extracted below:
"(i) Of all the things pennitted by Allah, divorce is the most
undesirable act. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Bad Karahiya al-Talaq,
Hadith no: 2178).

D (ii) If a person who had pronounced Triple Talaq in one go was
brought to Caliph Umar he would put him to pain by beating and
thereafter separate the couple. (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Bab
man kara an yatliq al rajal imratahuu thalatha fi maqad wahadi
wa ajaza dhalika alayhi. Hadith number: 18089.

E (iii) Alqama narrated from Abdullah that he was asked about a
person who pronounced hundred divorces to his wife. He said
three made her prohibited (to him) and ninety seven is
transgression (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, Ki tab al-Talaq, bab fi
al raj al yatlaqu imratahuu miata aw alfa. Hadith number: 18098)

F
(iv) Aman met another playful man in Medinah. He saidk, "Did
you divorce your wife? He said, "Yes". He said, "How many
thousand? (How many? He replied: thousand). So he was
presented before Umar. He said so you have divorced your
wife? He said I was playing. So he mounted upon him with the
whip and said out of these three will suffice you. Another narrator
G reports Umar saying: "Triple Talaq will suffice you" (Musannaf
Abd al-Razzaq, Ki tab al-talaq, Hadith number 11340).
(v) Abdullah lbn Umar said: "Whoever resorts to Triple Talaq,
he disobeys his Lord and wife is alienated from him." (Musannaf
ibn Abi Shayba, Kitab al-Talaq, Hadith no: 18091 ).
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF JNDIA AND OTHERS 957
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJT]

(vi) Jmran Ibn Hussain was asked about a person who divorced A
his wife by Triple Talaq in single session. He said that the person
had disobeyed his Lord and his wife had become prohibited to
him. (MusannaflbnAbi Shayba, Hadith no: 18087)
(vii) If one tells his wife with whom he did not have conjugal
relations: Triple Talaq be upon you it will be effective. For he B
divorced her while she was his wife. Same holds trne for his
wife with whom his marriage was consummated." (Al-
Muhadhdhab, 4/305)
(viii) Chapter heading rnns thus: "The sance of those who take
the Quranic statement: 'Divorce can be pronounced twice, then C
either honourable retention or kind release; to mean that Triple
Talaq becomes effective. (Bukhari, 3/402)"
88. Based on the factual position recorded in the previous three
paragraphs, it was submitted, that this Court should not attempt to interpret
the manner in which the believers of the faith had understood the process D
for pronouncement of talaq. It was pointed out, that matters of faith
should best be left to be interpreted by the community itself, in the manner
in which its.members understand their own religion. This, according to
learned counsel, was imperative in view of the absolute contradictions
which clearly emerge from a collective perusal of the submissions
advanced on behalf the petitioners, as also, those canvassed on behalf E
; of the respondents. Jt was submitted, that different scholars have applied
different interpretations. It was also pointed out, that the interpretations
relied upon on behalfof the petitioners, were mostly of scholars who did
not belong to the Sunni faith, and were therefore irrelevant, for the
determination of the interpretation of the believers and followers of the F
Hanafi school of Sunni Muslims. One of the scholars relied upon,
according to learned senior counsel, was a disciple of Mirza Ghulam
Ahmed (the founder of the Quadini school), who declared himself to be
the Prophet, after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad. It was pointed
out, that Quadini 's disciple was Mohammed Ali. And, the interpretations
relied upon by different High Courts (-for reference, see Part-6 - G
Judicial pronouncements, on the subject of'talaq-e-biddat'), in recording
their conclusions, were based on views attributed to Mohammed Ali. It
was submitted, that Mohammed Ali is not recognized by all Muslims,
and as such, it would bea travesty ofjustice if his utterances were to be
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A relied upon and followed, contrary to the faith of Muslims (-especially
Muslims belonging to Hanafi school). Having expressed the aforesaid
overview, learned senior counsel highlighted from individual judgments
of the High Courts (~for details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial
pronouncements, on the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat') and pointed out,
that the reliances on various 'hadiths' recorded therein were not
B
appropriate in the background projected above.
89. Having made the above submissions, learned senior counsel
attempted to pointedly approach the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple
talaq. In this behalf it was reiterated, that talaq was in three forms -
'talaq-e-ahsan', 'talaq-e-hasan' and 'talaq-e-biddat'. It was pointed out,
C . that none of these forms of talaq are referred to either in the Quran, or
the 'hadith'. It was submitted, that the aforesaid three forms of talaq,
have been so categorized by Islamic scholars. It was pointed out, that
what was common in all the forms oftalaq, was the finality thereof, in
the matter of severance of the matrimonial tie between the husband and
D · wife. Another commonness was also pointed out, namely, that 'talaq-e-
ahsan', if not revoked, attain finality; that 'talaq-e-hasan' if likewise not
revoked, is treated as final; and that 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq at the
time of its pronouncement, is considered as final. It was submitted, that
all kinds/forms of talaq when administered three times became
irrevocable. Yet again, it was reiterated, that the petitioners before this
E Court were not challenging the finality of talaq, they were merely
challenging the procedure adopted by the Muslim husbands while
adminiStering 'talaq-e-biddat', which has the immediate consequences
of finality.
90. In the pontext expressed in the preceding paragraph, it was
F sought to be highlighted, that Imam Abu Hanifa did not himself record
his. own understanding what the Prophet Muhammad had said. It was
pointed out, that he had two disciples-Abu Yusuf and Imam Mohammed.
It was submitted, that Imam Abu Yusufin his book '~lkhtilaafAbi Hanifah
wabniAbi Laila" (first edition, 1357) stated the following on the triple
G talaq: -
"i. If the man said to his wife, "Your matter is in your hand:, she
said, "I have divorced myselfthree times". Abu Haneefah (may
Allah be pleased with him) says: "If the husband intends three
times, then it is three."
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UN10N OF INDIA AND OTHERS 959
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Reference was also made to the writings of Imam Abu Mohammed in A
his book entitled '.'Al-Mautta" (first volume), wherein he asserted as
'under:
· "i. Muhammad says: So we follow this that if she chooses her
husband then it will not be counted a divorce, and if shechoQses
herself then it is accorfding to what her husband intended, if his B
intention is one hen it will be counted one irrevocable (Baainah)
divorce, and if his is three it will be three divorces. This is the
saying of Abu Hanifah."
91. Reference was also made to writings with respect to 'talaq-
e~biddat' by scholars ofother schools. In this behalf, the Court's attention c
. was invited to the following:
"(i) Most of the Ulema take the innovative divorce as effective
(Baday al-sanay, fas! Hukum Talaq-al Bidaa, Kitab al-Talaq, 3/
153).
(ii) What do you think about the effectiveness of pronouncing D
divorce thrice upon. one's pregnant wife either in one go or in
three different sessions, Imam Malik replied in the affirmative.
(AI-Mudawwana, 2/68)
(iii) The validity of triple talaq is also endorsed by all Ahl Al
Sunnah jurists. Allama Ibn Quda ma adds that:, "This view is E
attributed to Abdul/ah ibn Abbas. The same stance is shared by
most of the successors and later scholars." (AI-Mughni Ii Ibn ·
Qudama, 10/334) ·
(iv) The Book; Sunnah, and· the consensus view of classical
authorities is that Triple Talaq is ~ffective, even if pronounced in F
one go. The act in itself is, however, a sin." (Ahkam al-Quran Iii
Jassas, 2/85)
. (v) Imam Shafe' I (of Shafe' I School) has stated as follows in
his book entitled asAl-Umm (fifth volume):
Ifhe says you are divorced absolutely, withthe intention oftrlple G
, divorce then it will be considered triple divorce and if he intends
one it will be considered one divorce and if he says you are
divorced with the intention of three it will be considered three.
(page 359)
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (vi) Mauffaqud DinAbi MuhammedAbdillah Ben Ahmed Ben
Muhammed Ben Qudamah Al-Muqaddasi Al-Jammaili Al-
Dimashqi Al-Salihi Al-Hanbali (of the Hanbali School) in his book
entitled as Al-Mughni (tenth volume) has stated as follows:
Ahmed said: lfhe says to wife: Divorce yourself, intending three,
B and she has divorced herself thrice, it will be considered three,
and if he has intended one then it will considered one. (page
394)
(vii) Allama lbn Qudama, a Hanbali jurist is of the view that if
one divorces thrice with a single utterance, this divorce will be
c effective and she will be unlawful for him until she marries
domeone else. Consummation of marriage is immaterial. The
validity of Triple Talaq is also endorsed by all Ahl Al Sunnah
juristics. Allama lbn Qudamma adds that: "This view is attributed
to Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abu Huraira, Umar, Abdullah ibn Umar,
Abdullah ibn Amr ibnAas, Abdullah ibn Masud, and An as. The
D same stance is shared by most of the successors and later
scholars." "(Al-Mughni Ii Ibn Qudama, 10,334)".
92. Based on the 'hadiths' depicted in the foregoing, and in the
paragraphs preceding thereto, it was submitted, that for the Hanafi school
of Sunni Muslims 'talaq-e-biddat' -triple talaq was a part and parcel of
E their 'personal law', namely, a part and parcel of their faith, which they
had followed generation after generation, over centuries. That being
the position, it was submitted, that 'talaq-e-biddat' should be treated as
the constitutionally protected fundamental right of Muslims, which could
not be interfered with on the touchstone of being violative of the
F fundamental rights; enshrined in the Constitution - or for that matter,
constitutional morality propounded at the behest of the petitioners.
93. Learned senior counsel reiter;ited, that judicial intereference
in the matterof'personal law' is not the proper course to be adopted for
achieving the prayers raised by the petitoners. Reference was made by
G a large number of Muslim countries across the world (-for details, refer
to Part-5 -Abrogation of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation,
the world over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States), which had
provided the necessary succor by legislating on orthodox practices, which
were not attuned to present day social n01ms. It was submitted, that in
all the countries in which the practice of'talaq-e-biddat' has been annulled
H or was being read down, as a matter of interpretation, the legislatures of
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 961
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
'
the respective countries have interfered to bring in the said reform. A
94. In order to fully express the ambit and scope of 'personal
law', and to demonstrate the contours of the freedom of conscience and
free profession, practice and propagation ofreligion propounded in Article
25, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the Constituent Assembly
debates. Interestingly reference was, first of all, made to Article 44 of B
the Contitution, which is extracted below: ·
"44. Uniform civil code for the citizens.- The State shall
endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code
throughout the territory oflndia."
It is necessary to notice, that during the Constituent Assembly debates, c
the present Article 44 was numbered as draft Article 35. During the
course of the Constituent Assembly debates, amendments to draft Article
35 were proposed by Mohamed Ismail Sahib, Naziruddin Ahmad,
Mahboob Ali Beg, Sahib Bahadurand Pocker Sahib Bahadur. Relevant
extract of their amendments and their explanations thereto are D
reproduced below:
"Mr. Mohamad Ismail Sahib (Madras: Muslim): Sir, I move that
the following proviso be added to article 35:
"Provided that an;:: grou12, section or communit;:: of 12eo12le shall
not be obliged to give u11 its own 12ersonal lawin case it has such E
a law."
The right of a grou11 or a communitx: of 12eo12le to followand
adhere to its own 2ersonal law is among the fundamentalrights
and this 12rovision should reallx: be made amongst thestatuto!}'
and justiciable fundamental rights. It is for thisreason that I along
F
with other friends have given amendmentsto certain other articles
· going 12revious to this which I will move at the 12ro12er time.
Now the right to follow 12ersonal law is 12art of the wax:of life of
tliose 12eo12le who are following such laws; it is12art of theirreligion
and .[!art of their culture. lfanx:thing is done affecting the 12ersonal
laws, it will betantamount to interference with the wax: of life of G
those12eo12le who have been observing these laws for
;_ generationsand ages. This secular State which we are hying to
createshould not do anx:thing to interfere with thewa;i: of life and
religion of the 12eo11le. The matter ofretaining personal law is
nothing new; we have precedents inEuropean countries. H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Yugoslavia, for instance, that is, thekingdom of the Serbs, Croats
and Slovenes, is obliged undertreaty obligations to guarantee the
rights of minorities. The clause regarding rights ofMussulmans
reads as follows:
"The Serb, Croat and Slovene State agrees to grant tothe
B Mussulmans in the matter of family law and personalstatus
provisions suitable for regulating these matters inaccordance with
the Mussulman usage."
We find similar clauses in several other Europeanconstitutions
also. But these refer to minorities while myamendment refers_
c not t<,> the minorities alone but to allpeople including the majority
community, because it says,"Any group, section or community
of people shall not beobliged" etc. Therefore it seeks to secure
the rights of all people in regard to their existing personal law._
Again this amendment does not seek to introduce anyinnovation
D or bring in a new set of laws for the people, butonly wants the
maintenance of the personal law already existing among certain
sections of people. Now why do peoplewant a uniform civil code,
as in article 35? Their ideaevidently is to secure harmony through
uniformity. But Imaintain that for that purpose it is not necessary
toregiment the civil law of the people including the personallaw.
E Such regimentation will bring discontent and harmonywill be
affected. But if people are allowed to follow theirown personal
law there will be no discontent ordissatisfaction. Every section
of the people, being free tofollow its own personal law will not
really come in contlictwith others.
F Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: Sir, I beg to move:
"That to article 35, the following proviso be added, namely: -
Provided that the personal law of any community which has
been guaranteed by the statue shall not be changedexcept with
· the previous approval of the community ascertained in such
G manner as the Union Legislature maydetermine by law."
In moving this, I do not wish to confine my remarks tothe
inconvenience felt by the Muslim_ community alone. I would put
it on a much broader ground. In fact, eachcommunity, each
religious community has certain religious laws, certain civil laws
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 963
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI].

inseQarably connected withreligious beliefs and practices. I believe A
that in framing a unifonn draft code these religious laws cir semi-
religious laws should be kept out of its way. There are several
reasons which underlie this amendment. One .of them is that
perhaps it dashes with article 19 of the Draft Constitution. In
article 19 it is provided that 'subject to public order. morality and B
health and to the other provisions of this Part. all persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely tb
profess, practise and propagate religion. In fact, this is so
fundaitiental that the Drafting Committee has very rightly ·
. introduced this in this place. Then in clause(2) of the same article
it has been further provided by way oflimitation of the right that C
'Nothing in this article shall affect the operation ofanyexistil]g
law or preclude the State from making any law regulating or
restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular
activity which may be associated with religious practice'. I can
quite see that there may be many pernicious practices which D
may accompany religious practices and they may be controlled.
But there are certain religious practices. certain religious laws
which do not come within the exception in clause (2). viz. financial.
political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practices. Having guaranteed, and very rightly
guaranteed the freedom of religious practice and the freedom to E
propagate religion, I think the present article tries to undo what
has been given in article 19. I submit, Sir, that we must try to
prevent this anomaly. In article 19 we enacted a positive provision
which is justiciable and which any subject ofa State irrespective
of his caste and community can take to a Court of law and seek
enforcement. On the other hand. by the article under reference F
we are giving the State some amom1t oflatitude which may enable
into ignore the right conceded. And this right is not justiciable. It
recommends to the State certain things and therefore it gives a
right to the State. But then the subject has not been given any
right under this provision. Submit that the present article is likely G
to encourage testate. to break the guarantees given in ar1icle 19.
I submit, Sir. there are certain aspects of the Civil Procedure
Code which have' already interfered with our personal laws and
very rightly so. But during the 175 years of British rule, they did
not interfere with certain fundamental personal laws. They have H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A enacted the Registration Act, the Limitation Act, the Civil
Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Penal Code,
the Evidence Act, the Transfer of Prope11y Act, the Sarda Act
and various other Acts. They have been imposed gradually as
occasion arose and they were intended to make the laws uniform
although they clash with the personal laws of particular
B
community. But take the case of marriage practice and the laws
of inheritance. They have never interfered with them. lt will be
difficult at this stage of our society to ask the people to give up
their ideas of marriage. which are associated with religious
institutions in many communities. The laws of inheritance are
c also supposed to be the result ofreligious injunctions. I submit
that the interference with these matters should be gradual and
must progress with the advance of time. I have no doubt that a
stage would come when the civil law would be uniform. But
then that time has not yet come. We believe that the power that
has been given to the State to make the Civil Code unifo1m is in
D advance of the time. As it is, any State would be justified under
article 35 to interfere with the settled laws of the different
communities at once. For instance. there remarriage practices
in various communities. If we want to introduce a law that every
marriage shall be registered and if not it will not be valid, we can
E do so under article 35. But would you invalidate a marriage which
is valid under the existing law and under the present religious
beliefs and practices on the ground that it has not been registered
under any new law and thus bastardize the children born?
This is only one instance of how interference can go too far. As
F I have already submitted, the goal should be towards a uniform
civil code but it should be gradual and with the consent of the
people concerned. I have therefore in my amendment suggested
that religious laws relating to particular communities should not
be affected except with their consent to be ascertained in such
manner as Parliament may decide by law. Parliament may well
G decide to ascertain the consent of the community through their
representatives, and this could be secured by the representatives
by their election speeches and pledges. In fact, this may be made
an article of faith in an election, and a vote on that could be
regarded as consent. These are matters of detail. I have attempted
H by my amendment to leave it to the Central Legislature to decide
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 965
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

how to ascertain this consent. Submit. Sir, that this·is not a matter. A
of mere idealism. It is a question of stem reality which we must.
not refuse to face and I believe· it will lead to a considerable
amount of misunderstanding and resentment amongst the various
sections of the countiy. What tlie British in 175 years failed to
door was afraid to do, what the Muslims in the course of 500 B
years refrained from doing, we should 11.0t give power to testate
to ~o all at once. I submit, Sir, that we should proceed not in
haste but with caution, with experience, with statesmanship and
with sympathy. . ..
MahboodAli Baig Sahib Bahadur: Sir,) move that the following
. proviso be added to article35: C
"Provided that nothing in this arti~le shall affect the personal law
of the citizen."
My view of article 35 is that the words "Civil Code" do not
cover the strictly personal law of a citizen. The Civil Code covers
laws of this kind: laws of property, transfer of property, law of. D ··.
contract, law of evidence etc. The law as observed by a partic\llar
.religious community is not covered by article 35. That is my
view. Anyhow. in order to clarify the posiijon that article 35 does
not affect the personal law of the citizen, I have given notice of
this amendment. Now, Sir. if for any reason the framers of this E
article have got in their minds that the personal law of the citizen
is also covered by the expression "Civil. Code", I wish to submit
that theyare overlooking the veiy important fact of the personal
law being so much dear and near to certain religious communities.
As far asthe Mussalmans are concerned, their laws ofsuccession,
inheritance. marriage and divorce are completely dependent upon F
their relicion. · · . · '· ·.
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar: It is a matter of contract.
Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur: I know that Mr.
Ananthasayanam Ayyangar has alw11ys very queer ideas about G
the laws of other communities. It is interpreted as contract, while
.the marriage amongst the Hindus is a Samskara and that among
Europeans it is a matter of status. I know that very well, but this
. contract is enjoined on the Mussalmans by the Quran and if it is
not followed, marriage is not a legal marriage at all. For f350
years this law has been practised by Muslims and reco!!llised by H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A all authorities in all states. Iftoday Mr. AnanthasayanamAyyangar
is going to say that some other method of proving the marriage is
going to be introduced, we refuse to abide by it because it is not
according to our religion. It is not according to the code that is
laid down for us for all times in this matter. Therefore, Sir, it is
not a matter to be treated so lightly. I know that in the case of
B
some other communities also, their personal law depends entirely
upon their religious tenets. lf some communities have got their
own way of dealing with their religious tenets and practices, that
cannot be imposed on a community which insists that their
religious tenets should be observed.
c B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur (Madras: Muslim): Mr. Vice-President,
Sir, I support the motion which has already been moved by Mr.
Mohamed Ismail Sahib to the effect that the following proviso
be added to article 35: -
"Provide that any group, section or community of people shall
D not be obliged to give up its own personal law in casein has such
a law."
It is a very moderate and reasonable amendment to this article
35. Now 1 would request the House to consider this amendment
not from the point of view of the Mussalman community alone,
E
but from the point of view of the various communities that exist
in this country, following various codes oflaw, with reference to
inheritance, marriage, succession, divorce, endowments and so
many other matters. The House will not that one of the reasons
why the Britisher, having conquered this country, has been able
to carry on the administration of this country for the last 150
F years and over was that he gave a guarantee of following their
own personal laws to each of the various communities in the
country. That is one of the secrets of success and the basis of
the administration of justice on which even the foreign' rule was
based. I ask, Sir, whether by the freedom we have obtained for
this countrv. are we going to give up that freedom of conscience
G
and that freedom of religious practices and that freedom of
following one's own personal law and try or aspire to impose
upon the whole countIT one code of civil law, whatever it may
mean, - which I say, as it is, may include even all branches of
civil law, namely, the law of marriage, law of inheritance, law of
H divorce and so many other kindred matters?
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. .967
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

In the first place. I would like to know the real intention with A
which this clause has been introduced. If the words "Civil Code"·
are inte~ded only to apply to matters procedure like the Civil .
Procedure Code and such other laws which are uniform so far
as India is concerned at present well, nobody has any objection
to that, but the various civil Courts Acts in the various provinces · B
in this country have secured for, each·community the right to
follow their personal laws as regards marriage, inheritance,
divorce, etc. But if it is intended that the aspiration of the State
should be to override all these provisions and to have uniformity
of law to be imposed upon the whole people on these matters
which are dealt with by the Civil Courts Acts in the various c
provinces. well, I would only say, Sir. that it is a tyrannous
provision which ought not to be tolerated; and let it notbe taken ·
that I am only voicing forth the feelings of the Mussalmans. In
saying this, I am voicing forth the feelings of ever so many
sections in this country who feel that it would be really tvrannous
D
to interfere with the religious practices, and with the religious
laws. by which they are governed now.
xxx . xxx / xxx
If such a body as this interferes with the religious rights and
practices, it will be tyrannous. These organisations have used a E
much stronger language than I amusing, Sir. Therefore, I would
request the Assembly not to consider what I have said entirely
as coming from the point of view of the Muslim community. 1·
know there are great differences in the law of inheritance and
various other matters between the various sectibns of the Hindu
community. Is this Assembly going to set aside all these F
aiffcrcnccs and make them uniform? By uniform, I ask, what do
you mean and which particular law, of which community are
you going to take as the standard? What have you got in your
mind in enacting a clause like this? There are the mitakshara
and Dayabaga systems; there are so many other systems G
followed by various other communities. What is it that you are5
making the basis?
Is it open to us to do anything of this sort? By this one clause you
are revolutionising the whole country and the wliole,setup. There
is no need for it.
H
I. ,

968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · ·-l2Ql 7] 9 S.C.R.

A Sir. as already pointed out by one of my predecessors in speaking
on this motion, this is entirely antagonistic tithe provision made
as regards Fundamental Rights in articlel9. If it is antagonistic,
what is the purpose served by clause like this? Is it open to this
Assembly to pass by one stroke of the pen an article by which
the whole country is revolutionised? Is it intended? I do not know
B
what the framers of this article mean by this. On a matter of
such grave importance. I am very sorry to find that the framers
or the draftsmen of this article have not bestowed sufficiently
serious attention to that. Whether it is copied from anywhere or
not, I do not know. Anyhow, if it is copied from anywhere, I must
c condemn that provision even in that Constitution. It is very easy
to copy sections from other constitutions of countries where the
c_irciunstances are entirely different. There are ever so many
multitudes of communities following various customs for centuries
or thousands of years. By one stroke of the pen you want to
annul all that and make them uniform. What is the purpose
D
served? What is the purpose served by this uniformity except to
murd7r the consciences of the people and make them feel that
they are being trampled upon as regards their religious rights
-and practices? Such a tvrannous measure ought not to find a
place in our Constitution. I submit, Sir, there are ever so many
E sections- of the Hindu community who are rebelling against this
and who voice forth their feelings in much stronger language
than I am using. If the framers of this article say that even the
majority community is uniform in support of this, I would challenge
them to sax so. It is not so. Even assuming that the majority
community is of this view, I say. it has to be condemned and it
F ought not to be allowed, because. in a democracy, as I take it, it
is the dutv of the majoritv to secure the sacred rights of every
minority. It is a misnomer to call it a democracy if the majority
rides rough-shod over the rights of the minorities. It is not
democracy at all; it is tyranny. Therefore, I would submit to you
G and all the Members of this House to take very serious notice of
this article; it is not a light thing to be passed like this.
In this connection, Sir, I would submit that I have given notice of
an amendment to the Fundamental Right article also. This is
only a Directive Principle." ·
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 969
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

A
The above stated amendments proposed to draft Article 35 were
opposed by K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar.
Relevant extracts of their responses are reproduced
. . below:
. .
. Shri K. M. Munshi (Bombay: General): Mr. VicecPresident, I
beg to submit a few considerations. This particular clause which B
is now before the House is not brought for discUS'sion for the
first time. It has been discussed in several committees and at
·several places before it came to the House. The ground that is
now put forward against it is, firstly that it infringes the
Fundamental Right mentioned in article 19; and secondly, it is c
tvrannous to the minority.
As regards article 19 the House accepted it and made it quite
clear that-"Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of
any existing law or preclude the State from making any law (a)
regulating or restricting"-! am omitting the unnecessary words- D
."or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious
practices; (b) for social welfare an·d reforms". Therefore the
.House has already accepted the principle that if a religious
.'practice followed so far covers a secular activity or falls within
·the field of social reform or social welfare. it would be open to
Parliament to make. laws about it without infringing this E
Fundarriental Rightof a minority.
i
It inust also be remembered that if this clause is not put in, it
' does not mean that the Parliament hi future would have no right
. , ,to enact a Civil Code. The only restriction touch a right would be.
article 19 and! have already pointed out that artide 19, accepted F
by the House urtanimously, permits legislation covering secular
activities. The whole object of this article is that as and when the
·Parliament thinks proper or rather when the majority in the ..
.Parliament thinks proper an attempt may be made.to.unify the
·.·personal law of the country.· G
A further argument has been advanced that the enactment of a
1 Civil Code would be tvrannica1 to minorities. ls it tyrannical?
Nowhere in advanced Muslim coilnti'ies the personal law of each
· minoritv has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the
enactment of a Civil Code. Take for instance Turkey or Egypt. H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A No minority in these countries is permitted to have such rights.
But I go further. When the Shariat Act was passed or when
certain laws were passed in the Central Legislature in the old
regime, the Khojas and Cutchi Memons were highly dissatisfied.
They then followed certain Hindu customs; for generations since
B they became converts they had done so. They did not want to
conform to the Shariat; and yet by legislation of the Central
Legislature certain Muslim members who felt that Shariat law
should be enforced upon the whole community carried their point.
The Khojas and Cutchi Memons most unwillingly had to submit
to it. Where were the rights of minority then? When you want to
c ·consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the
benefit which may accrue to the whole community and motto
the customs of a part of it. It is not therefore correct to say that
such an act is tyranny of the majority. lf you will look at the
countries in Europe which have a Civil Code, eveiyone who
D goes there from any part of the world and every minority, has to
submit to the Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the
minority The point however is this, whether we are going to
consolidate and unify our personal law in such a way that the
way oflife of the whole country may in course of time be unified
and secular. We want to divorce religion from personal law, from
E what may be called social relations or from the rights of parties
as regards inheritance or succession. What have these things
got to do with religion l really fail to understand. Take for instance
the Hindu Law Draft which is before the Legislative Assembly.
lf one looks atManu and Yagnyavalkya and all the rest of them,
F I think most of the provisions of the new Bill will run counter to
their injunctions. But after all we are an advancing society. We
are in a stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation
by every means without interfering with religious practices. If
however the religious practices in the past have been so construed
as to cover the whole field oflife, we have reached a point when
G we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not
religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. This is
what is emphasised by this article.
Now look at the disadvantages that you will perpetuate ifthere
is no Civil Code. Take for instance the Hindus. We have the law
H
SHAYARA BANO- v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 971
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CH]

ofMayukha applying in some parts oflndia; we have Mithakshara A
in others; and we have the law-Dayabagha in Bengal. In this
way even the Hindus themselves have separate laws and most
of our Provinces and States have started making separate Hindu
law for themselves. Are we going to permit this piecemeal
legislation on the ground that it affects the personal law of the B
country? It is therefore not merely a qtiestion for minorities but it
also affects the majority.
I know there are many among Hindus who do not like a uniform
Civil Code, because they take the same view as the honomable
Muslim Members who spoke last. They feel that the personal
law of inheritance, succession etc. is really apart of theirreligion.
c
If that were so. you can never give, for instance, equality to
women. But you have already passed a Fundamental Right to
that effect and you have an aiiicle here which lays down that
there should be no discrimination against sex. Look at Hindu
Law; you get any amount of discrimination against women; and, D
ifthat is part of Hindu religion or Hindu religious practice, you
cannot pass a single law which would elevate the position of
Hindu women to that of men. Therefore, there is no reason why
there should not be a civil code throughout the territory of India.
xxx xxx lGCT E
ShriAiladi KrishanaswamiAyyar (Madras: General): Mr. Vice-
President, after the very full exposition of my friend the
Honourable Mr. Munshi, it is not necessary to cover the whole
ground. But it is as well to understand whether there can be any -
real objection to the aiiicle as it rnns. F
"The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a unifo1m
_ civil code throughout the territory oflndia."
xxx xxx xxx
Now, my friend Mr. Pocker levelled an attack against the Drafting G
Committee on the ground that they did not know their business.
I should like to know whether he has carefully read what
happened even in the British regime. You must know that the
Muslim law covers the field of contracts, the field of criminal
law. the field of divorce law, the field of marriage and every part
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A oflaw as contained in the Muslim law. When the British occupied
this country, they said, we are going to introduce one criminal
. law in this country which will be applicable to all citizens, be they
Englishmen, be they Hindus. be they Muslims. Did the Muslims
take exception. and did they revolt against the British for
introducing a single system of criminal law? Similarly we have
B
·the law of contracts governing transactions between Muslims
and Hindus, between Muslims and Muslims. They are governed
not by the law of the Koran but by the Anglo-Indian jurisprudence,
yet no exception was taken to that. Again, there are various
principles in the law of transfer which have been borrowed from
c the English jurisprudence.
Therefore, when there is impact betWeen two civilizations or
between two cultures, each culture must be influenced and
influence the other culture. If there is a determined opposition,
or if there is strong opposition by any section of the community,
D it would be unwise onthe part of the legislators of this country to
attempt to ignore it. Today, even without article 35, there is nothing
to prevent the future Parliament oflndia from passing such laws.
Therefore, the idea is to have a uniform civil code.
Now, again, there are Muslims and there are Hindus, there are
E Catholics, there are Christians, there are Jews, in different
European countries. I should like to know from Mr.Packer
whether different personal laws are perpetuated in France; in
Germany, in Italy and in all the continental countries of Europe,
or whether the laws of succession aren't co-ordinated and unified
in the various States. He must have made a .detailed study of
F Muslim jurisprudence and found out whether in all those countries,
there is a single system of law or different systems oflaw.
·Leave alone people who are there. Today, even in regard to
people in other parts of the country, if they have property in the
continent of Europe where the German Civil Code or the French
G Civil Code obtains, the people are governed by the law of the
place in very many respects. Therefore, it is incorrect to say
that we are invading the domain of religion. Under the Moslem
law, unlike under Hindu law, marriage is purely a civil contract.
The idea of a sacrament does not enter into the concept of
marriage in Muslim jurisprudence though the incidence of the
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF .INDIA AND OTHERS 973
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

·contract may be governed by what is laid down in the Koran and A
by theater jurists. Therefore. there is no question ofreligion being
in danger. Certainly no Parliament. no Legislature will be so unwise
as to- attempt it, apart from the power of the Legislature to
interfere with religious tenets of peoples. After all the only
community that is willing to adapt itself to changing times seems B
to be the majority community in the country. They are willing to
take lessons from the minority and adapt their Hindu Laws and
take a leaf from the Muslims for the purpose of reforming even
the Hindu Law.Therefore. there is no force to the objection that
· is put forward to article 35. The future Legislatures may attempt
a unifonn Civil Code or they may not. The uniform Civil Code C
will rim irito every aspect of Civil Law. In regard to contracts,
procedure and property uniformity is sought to be secured by
their finding a place iri the Concurrent List. In respect of these
matters the greatest contribution ofBritishjurisprudence has been
to bring about a uniformity in these matters. We only go a step D
further than the British who ruled in this country. Why should
you distrust much more a national indigenous Government than
a foreign Government which has been ruling? Why should our·
Muslim friends have greater confidence, greater faith in the
British rule than in a democratic rule which will certainly have
regard to the religious tenets and be.liefs of all people? E
Therefore, for those' reasons, I submit that the House may
unanimously pass this article which has been placed before the
Members after due consideration.''
Before the amendments were put to vote, Dr: B.R, Ambedker made the
following observations: · ·F

\
·The Honourable Di. B. R. Ambedkltr: Sir, I am afraid I ~ail.not
·i
accept the amendments which have been moved to this article.
In dealing with this matter, I do not propose to touch on the
.. j
I .mer.its of the question as to whether this country should have a
·'
Civil Code or it should not. That is a matterwhich I think has G
'f .. beeh dealt with sufficiently for the occasion by my friend, Mr.
I Munshi, as well as by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyat. When
~ I
the amendments to certain fundamental rights are moved, it would
! · -0.e possible for me tO make a full statement on this subject, and I
therefore do not propose to deal with it here. H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A M:t friend, Mr. Hussain Imam, in rising to sui;mort the
amendments, asked whether it was 12ossible and desirable to
have a uniform Code of laws for a countr:i: so vast as this is.
Now I must confess that I was very much sur12rised at that
statement, for the sim12le reason that we have in this countr:i: a
uniform code of laws covering almost every as12ect of human
B
relationshiQ. We have a uniform and com12lete Criminal Code
012erating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal
Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the Law of
Transfer of Pro12ert:i:, which deals with 12ro12erty relations and
which is 012erative throughout the count!}'.. Then there are the
c Negotiable Instruments Acts: and I can cite innumerable
enactments which would 12rove that this countt}'. has 12racticall:i:
a Civil Code, uniform in its content and a1212licable to the whole .:
of the country. The onl:i: Qrovince the Civil Law has not been
able to invade so far is Marriage and Succession. It is this little
corner which we have not been able to invade so far and it is the
D
intention of those who desire to have article 35 as 12art of the
Constitution to bring about that change. Therefore, the arg!iment
whether we should attem12t such a thing seems to me somewhat
mis12laced for the sim12le reason that we have, as a matter of
fact, covered the whole lot of the field which is covered by a
E uniform Civil Code in this country. It is therefore too late now to
ask the guestion whether we could do it. As I sa:i:, we have
alread:i: done it.
Coming to the amendments, there are only two observations
which I would like to make. My first observation would be to
F state that members who put forth these amendments say that
the Muslim personal law, so far as this country was concerned,
was immutable and uniform through the whole oflndia. Now I
wish to challenge that statement. I think most of my friends who
have spoken on this amendment have quite forgotten that up to
1935 the North-West Frontier Province was not subject to the
G Shariat Law. 1t followed the Hindu Law in the matter of
succession and in other matters, so much so that it was in 1939
that the Central Legislature had to come into the field and to
abrogate the application of the Hindu Law to the Muslims of the
North-West Frontier Province and to apply the Shariat Law to
H them. That is not all.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA ANQ OTHERS 975
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

My honourable friends have forgotten, that, apart from the North- A
West Frontier Province, up till 193 7 in the rest of India, in various
parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and
Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the
Hindu Law in the matter of successiqn. In order to bring them
on the plane ofuniformity with regard to the other Muslims who B
observed the Shariat Law, the Legislature had to intervene in
1937 and to pass an enactment applying the Shariat Law to the
rest of India.
I am also informed by my friend, Shri Kanmakara Menon, that
in North Malabar the MarumakkathayamLaw applied to all-not C
only to Hindus but also to Muslims. It is to be remembered that
the Maiumakkathayam Law is a Matriarchal form of law and
not a Partriarchal form oflaw.
The Mussulmans, therefore, in North Malabar were up to now
following the Marumakkathyam law. It is therefore no use making
a categorical statement that the Muslim law has been an D
immutable law which they have been following from ancient
times. That law as such was not applicable in certain parts and it
has been made applicable ten years .ago. Therefore if it was
found necessary that for the purpose of evolving a single civil
code applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion, certain E
portions of the Hindus, law, not because they were contained in
Hindu law but because they were found to be the most suitable,
were incorporated into the new civil code projected by article
. 35, I am quite certain that it would not be open to any Muslim to
say that the framers of the civil code had done great violence to
the sentiments of the Muslim community. F

My second observation is to give them an assurance. I quite
realise their feelings iq the matter, but I think they have read
rather too much into article 35, which merely proposes that the
State shall endeavour to secure a civil code for the citizens of
the country. It does not say that after the Code is framed the G
State shall enforce it upon all citizens merely because they are
citizens. It is perfectly possible that the future parliament may
make a provision byway of making a beginning that the Code
shall apply only to those who make a declaration that they are
prepared to be bound by it, so that in the initial stage the application · H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A of the Code may be purely voluntary. Parliament may feel the
ground by some such method. This is not a novel method. It was
adopted in the Shariat Act of 1937 when it was applied to
territories ofherthan the North-West frontier Province. The law
said that here is a Shariat law which should be applied to
B . Mussulmans who wanted thathe should be bound by the Shariat
Act should go to an officer of the state, make a declaration that
he is willing to be bound by it, -and after he has made that
declaration the law will bind him and his successors. It would be
perfectly possible for parliament to introduce a provision of that
sort; so that the fear which my friends have expressed here will
c be altogether nullified. I therefore submit that there is no substance
in these amendments and I oppose them."
When the matter was put to vote by the Vice President of the Constituent
Assembly, it was resolved as lmder:
"Mr. Vice-President: The question is:
D
"That the following proviso be added to article 35:.
'Provided that any group, section or community or people shall
not be obliged t9 give up its own personal law in case it has such
a law'."
E The motion was negatived."
Based on the Constituent Assembly debates with reference to draft Article
35, which was incorporated in the Constitution as Article 44 (extracted
above), it was submitted, that as expressed in Article 25(2)(b), so also
the debates of Article44, the intent of the Constituent Assembly was to
F protect 'personal laws' of different communities by elevating their stature
to that of other fundamental rights; however with the rider, that the
legislature was competent to amend the same.
95. Sequentially, learned senior counsel invited our attention to
the Constituent Assembly debates with reference to Article 25 so as to
G bring home his contention, that the above article preserved to all their
'personal laws' by elevating the same to the stature of a fundamental
. rrght. The instant elevation, it was pointed out, was by incorporating
Articles 25 and 26 as components of Part III - Fundamental Rights, of
the Constitution. It would be relevant to record, that Article 25 as it now
exists, was debated as draft Article 19 by the Constituent Assembly. It
H
SHAYARA HANO v. UNION OF ,IND1A AND OTHERS 977
[JAGDISH SINGH kHEHAR, CJI]
.)

was pointed out, that onlyone amendment proposed by Mohamed Ismail A
Sahib and its response by Pt. Laxmikanta Mitra would bring home the
proposition being canvassed, namely, that 'personal laws' were inalienable
rights of individuals and permitted them to be governed in consonance .
with their faith. The amendment proposed by Mohamed Ismail Sahib
and his statement in that behalf before the Constituent. Assembly, as is B
relevant for the present controversy, is being extracted h7~eunder:
"Mr. Mohamed Ismail Sahib: Tharikyouverymuch,Sir, forgiving
,·me another opportunity to put my views before tfie House on 1
this very important matter. I beg to move: ·
' i .

"That after clause (2) of article 19, the following ne~ clause be c·
added: . ·
'{3) Nothingin clause (2)ofthis articie shall affect the right of
any citizen to follow the personal law· of the group or· the
community to which he belongs or professes to belong.'" .
Sir. this provision which I am suggesting would only recognise D
the age long right of the people to follow their own personal law.
within the limits of their families and communities. This does not
affect in any way the members of other communities. This does
· not encroach upon the rights of themembers of other communities
to follow their own personal law. It does not' mean any sacrifice E
at all on the part of the members of arty other community. Sir, ·
. here what we are concerned with. is only. the practice of the
members of certain families coining under one community. It is
a family practice and in such cases as succession, inheritance
. and disposal of properties bywayofwakf and will, the personal
law operates. It is only with such matters that we are concerned F
under personal law. In other matters, such as evidence, transfer
of property, contracts and in innumerable other questions of this .
so11, the civil code Will operate and will apply to every citizen of ·
the land, to whatever community he may belong. Therefore, this
will not in any way detract from the desirable amount ofunifonnity G
which the state may try to bring about; in the matter of the civil
law.
·This practice of following personalfawhas been there amongst
the people for ages. What I want under this amendment is that
that practice should notbe disturbed now and 1 want only the H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A continuance of a practice that has been going on among the
people for ages past. On a previous occasion Dr. Ambedkar
spoke about certain enactments concerning Muslim personal law,
enactments relating to Wakf, Shariat law and Muslim marriage
law. Here there was no question of the abrogation of the Muslim
personal law at all. There was no revision at all and in all those
B
cases what was done was that the Muslim personal law was
elucidated and it was made clear that these laws shall apply to
the Muslims. They did not mpdify them at all. Therefore those
enactments and legislations cannot be cited now as matters of
precedents for us to do anything contravening the personal law
c of the people. Under this amendment what I want the House to
accept is that when we speak of the State doing anything with
reference to the secular aspect of religion, the question of the
personal law shall not be brought in and it shall not be affected.
xxx xxx xxx
D The question -of professing, practising and propagating one's faith
is a right which the human being had from the very beginning of
time and that has been recognised as an inalienable right of eve1y
human being. not only in this land but the whole world over and
I think that nothing should be done to affect that right of man as
E a human being. That pa1t of the article as it stands is properly
worded and it should stand as it is. That is my view.
Another honourable Member spoke about the troubles that had
arisen as a result of the propagation of religion. I would say that
the troubles were not the result of the propagation of religion or
F the professing or practicing of religion. They arose as a result of
the misunderstanding ofreligion. My point of view, and 1say that
that is the coffect point of view, is that if only people understand
their respective religions aright and if they practise them aright
in the proper manner there would be no trouble whatever; and
because there was some trouble due to some cause it does not
G stand to reason that the fundamental right of a human being to
practise and propagate his religion should be abrogated in any
way."
The response of Pt. Laxmikanta Mitra is reproduced below:
"Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Mitra (West Bengal: General): Sir, I feel
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 979
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

myself called upon to put in a few words to explain the general A
implications of this article so as to remove some of the
misconceptions that have arisen in· the minds of some of my
honourable Friends over it.
This article 19 of the Draft Constitution confers on all person the
right to profess, practise and propagate anv religion they like but B
this right has been circumscribed by certain conditions which
the State would be free to impose in the interests of public morality,
public order and public health and also in so far as the right
conferred here does not conflict in any way with the other
provisions elaborated under this part of the Constitution. Some C
of my Friends argued that this right ought not to be permitted in
this Draft Constitution for the simple reason that we have d_eclared
time and again that this is going to be a secular State and as such
practice of religion should not be permitted as a fundamental
right. It has been futther argued that by conferring the additional
right to propagate a patiicular faith or religion the door is opened D
for all manner of troubles and conflicts which would eventually
paralyse the normal life of the State. I would say at once that
this conception of a secular State is wholly wrong. (By secular
State, as I understand it, is meant that the State is not going to
make any discrimination whatsoever on the ground ofreligion or
community against any person professing any particular form of / E
religious faith. This means in essence that no patiicular religion
in the State will receive any State patronage whatsoever. The
State is not going to establish, patronise or endow any particular
religion to the exclusion of or in preference to others and that no
citizen in the State will have any preferential treatment or will be F
discrimina_ted against simply on the ground that he professed a
particular form of religion. In other words in the affairs of the
State the professing of any particular religion will not be taken
into consideration at all.) This I consider to be the essence of a
secular state. At the same time we must be very careful to see
that this land of ours we do not deny to anybody the right not G
only to profess or practise but also to propagate any particular
religion. Mr. Vice-President, this glorious land of ours is nothing
if it does not stand for lofty religious and spiritual concepts and
ideals. India would not be occupying any place of honour on this
globe if she had not reached that spiritual height which she did in H
.-~-~

980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A her glorious past. Therefore I feel that the Constitution has rightly
provided for this not only as a right but also as a fundamental
right. In the exercise of this fundamental right eve1y community
inhabiting this State professing any religion will have equal right
and equal facilities to do whatever it likes in accordance with its
religion provided it does not clash with the conditions laid down
B
here."
In addition to the above, it is only relevant to mention, that the amendment
proposed by Mohamed Ismail Sahib was negatived by the Constituent
Assembly.
C 96. While concluding his subn.1issions Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned
Senior Advocate, focused his atteJ?tion to the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application, 1937 and<!nvited our attention to some of the debates
which had taken place whenJhe Bill was presented before the Legislative
Assembly. Reference is only necessary to the statements made by
H.M. Abdullah and Abdul Qaiyum on the floor of the House. The same
D are extracted hereunder: ,..,,,_.

"Mr H. M. Abdullah (West Central Punjab: Muhammadan): Sir,
fbeg to move: "That the Bill to make provision for the application
of the Moslem Personal Law (Shariat) to Moslerus in British
India, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into
E consideration."
The object of the Bill, as the House is already aware, is to replace
the customary law by the Shari at law in certain matters where
the parties to a dispute are Muslims. By doing so, it also helps
the weaker sex as it enables women to succeed to the ancestral
F property and to clairri dissolution of marriage on certain grounds.
After explaining the object of the Bill briefly, it gives me great
pleasure to say that the Bill has met with a unanimous support
from the Select Committee except in one or two points. Objection
has been taken to the words "or Law" in clause 2 of the Bill by
G
Messrs Mudie, MuhammadAzhar Ali and Sir Muhammad Yamin
Khan in their minutes of dissent. As there is an amendment on
the agenda for the omission of these words, 1shall deal with it
when it is moved. Meanwhile, I would confine my remarks to
the modifications suggested by the Select Committee. The main
changes made by it are two, one relating to the exclusion of the
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 981
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

agricultural land f;om the purview of the Bill, and the other A
concerning the amplification of the word "divorce"'. As succession
to agricultural land is an exclusively provincial subject under the
Government oflndiaAct, 1935, it had, much against my wish, to
be excluded from the Bill. Having regard to the different forms
of dissolution of marriage recognised by the Shariat, it was B
considered necessary to provide for all of them. In order to
impleri1ent the provisions in this respect, a new clause 3 has
been inserted in the BiU empowering the DistrictJudgeto grant
·dissolution of marriage on petition of a married Muslim woman
on certain grounds. These changes have been introduced in the
interest of the females who. in such matters. are at present at C
the mercy of their husbands.
I am sure that these wholesome changes will be supported by
the House. In addition to the above, the Select Committee havi:
made a few other amendments which are fully explained in the
report, and I need nortake the time oftheHouse in dilating upon D
them. I hope that th.e Bill in its present form will meet with the •
approval of the whole House.
Sir, I move.
Mr Deputy President (Mr Akhil ChandraDattas): Motion moved:
"That the Bill to make provision for the application of the Moslem E
Personal Law (Shariat) to Moslems in British India, as reported
by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.'' .
Mr Abdul Qaiyum (North-West Frontier Proyin~e: General): Sir,
I am in sympathy with the objects which ·this very useful Bill
aims at. There is a great awakening among the Musliin masses. F
and they are terribly conscious oftheir wretched condition socially..
politically and economically. There is a desire in the 107 l 08
Appendix B community for an advance in all these directions.
The feelings of the Muslim community have been expressed in
public meetings throughout the length and breadth of this country. G
This feeling. I have great pleasure in stating, is not merelyconfined
to males but it has spread to the females also. and for the first
time the Muslim women in India have given expression to their
strong feelings against the dead hand of customary law which
·has reduced them into the position of chattels. Sir. these feelings
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A have been expressed by various organisations of Muslim women
throughout India. A representative body of Muslim Ulema like
the Jamait-ulUlemai-Hind has also expressed its sympathy with
the objects of this Bill. Sir, there is something in the word Shariat,
-may be it is Arabic, -which gives a sort of fright to some of my
Honourable friends, but I think if they try to read the
B
Muhammadan Law on the point, especially on the point of
succession, they will realise that this Bill was long overdue and
that it is a step in the right direction. People have no idea of what
terrible conditions the Muslim women have had to endure in my
own Province: I can say that whenever a Muslim died, at least
c before the Frontier Shariat Law was enacted in the North-West
Frontier Province, his daughter, his sister and his wife all used to
be thrown into the street, and the reversioner in the tenth degree
would come round and collar all his prope1iy. .I think that the
conscience of all those who believe in progress, social. political
and economic will revolt against such practice and once people
D
realise that this Bill is primarily intended to improve the status of
women and to confer upon them benefits which arc lawfully
their due under the Muhammadan law, then they will gladlv
support this measure. 'Custom' is a very indefinite term. l know
it as a lawyer that in my Province whenever a question of custom
E used to crop up it used to involve any ammmt of research work.
lawyers used to indulge in research work to find out cases. look
up small books on customary law and it was found that the custom
varied from tribe to tribe. from village to village and it has been
held, by the High Court in our Province before the Shariat Act
s;ame into force. that custom varied from one part of the village
F
to the other. The position was so uncertain that people had to
spend so much money on litigation that by the time litigation came
to an end the property for which people were fighting would
disappear. It was with a view to put an end to this uncertaintv
that people in the Frontier Province pressed for an Act which
G was subsequently passed into law.
I have onlv one thing to say. Personally I want the Muslims in
India in matters affecting them to follow the personal law of the
Muslims as far as they can. l want them to move in this direction
because it is a thing which is going to help the Muslims and
H because the Muslims fonn a very important minority commlmity
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 983
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

in this country- they are 80 millions - all well-wishers of this A
country will agree with me that if it enhances the states of
Muslims, if it brings the much needed relief to the Mi1slim women,
it will be a good thing for the cause of the Indian nation.
Therefore, in our Province an Act was passed which goes much .
further than this particular Bill which is now under discussion B
before this House. It is a very well-known fact that under the
new Government of India Act, agricultural land and waqfs and
religious trusts are provincial subjects and that this Honourable
· House cannot legislate about matters which are now on the
provincial legislative list. The Act which we have iri the Frontier
Province, Act VI of 1935, goes much further than this Bill because C ·
it includes agricultural land and religious trusts. Therefore, 1have
tabled an amendment that this particular Bill - though I heartily
agree with the principles of Appendix B 109 the Bill - when
enacted into law, should not be extended to our Province. If it is
so extended, it would mean that the people of the Frontier D
Province would be taking a step backward and not forwards. It
is well-known fact and it is laid down in the Government of India
Act, Section 107, that where a Federal Law comes into conflict
with a Provincial Law atid even if the Federal Law has been
·passed after the Provincial Law, then to that extent it over-rides
the Provincial law and the Provincial Law becomes null and E
void. Therefore, my submission is that the intention with which I
tabled my amendment w~s not with any idea of opposing the
. object of this Bill, but my reason for moving this amendment is
that this Bill does not go as far as we wish to go -at least in one
Province, namely, the North-West Frontier Province. I submit
F
this is a meastu-e which has been long overdue. I have known
cases where a widow who was enjoying life estate - and whose
reversioners were waiting for her death - did not die but happened
to have a very long life. There have been cases in the Northwest
Frontier Province where people have taken the law into their
own hands and in order to get the property they have murdered_ G
the widow. I can cite other cases before this Honourable House.
There have been cases which I have come across in my legal
and professional career where, when a man dies leaving a wife
who by customary law has to enjoy the property till her death or·
remarriage, certain reversioners come forward and bring a suit
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A to declare that the widow had married one of the reversioners
with a view to proving that she was no longer a widow and with
a view to terminate her life estate. There have been numerous
cases where families have been ruined, murderers and stabbings
have taken place because the dead hand of customary law stood
in the way of the reversioners who were anxious to get what
B
they could not get and in order to deprive the poor widow, false
cases have been tromped up that she had remarried. There have
been many other illegal tricks resorted to by people with a view
to get hold of the property. I submit, Sir, that the dead hand of
customary law must be removed. We are living in an age in
c which very important changes are taking place. After all this
customary law is a thing of the past When many other things are
going the way of all flesh, when even systems of Government
have to change, when even mighty Empires have disappeared,
when we see signs of softening even in the hearts of the
Government of India, when we have got popular Congress
D
Governments in seven Provinces - a thing which nobody would
have believed six months ago or one year ago. I submit that it is
high time that we got rid of this dead hand of custom. After all
£UStom is a horrible thing as far as this particular matter is
concerned, and by endorsing the principles of this Bill we would
E be doing justice to millions oflndian women who profess Muslim
faith. I hope, Sir, the day is not_ far off when other communities
will also bring similar measures and when in India women and
men will be tre_ated equally in the eyes of law in the matter of
property, political rights, social rights and in all other respects. I.
have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the principles of
F
this Bill."
Based on the aforesaid debates and the details expressed hereinabove
(-for details, refer to Part-4- Legislation in India, in the field of Muslim
'personal law'), it was contended, that the main object of the legislation
was not to express the details of the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'.
G The object was merely to do away with customs and usages as were in
conflict with Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was therefore
submitted, that it would not be proper to hold, that by the Shariat Act, the
legislature gave statutory status to Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. lt
would be necessary to understand the above enactment, as statutorily
H abrogating customary practices and usages, as were in conflict with the
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 985
· [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] ·

existing Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was submitted, that the A
above enactment did not decide what was, or was not, Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat'. It would therefore be a misnomer to consider that the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, in any way,
legislated on the above subject It was pointed out, that Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat' comprised of the declarations contained in the Quran, or B
through 'hadiths', 'ijmas' and 'qiyas' (-for details, refer to Part-2- The
practiced modes of 'talaq' amongst Muslims). It was pointed out, that
the articles of faith, as have been expressed on a variety of subjects of
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', have been in place ever since they
were declared by the Prophet Mohammed: insofar as the practice of
'talaq-e-biddaf is concerned, it was spbmitted, that it has been practised C
amongst Muslims for the last 1400 years. It was submitted, that the
same is an accepted mode of divorce amongst Muslims. It wastherefore
urged, that it was not for this Court to decide, whether the aforesaid
practice was just and equitable. The reason for this Court not to interfere
with the same, it was submitted was, that the same was a matter of D
faith, ofa majority of Muslims in this country, and this Court would be
well advised to leave such a practice of faith, to be determined in the
manner as was considered fit by those who were governed thereby. A
belief, according to learned senior counsel, which is practiced for 1400
years, is a matter of faith, and is protected under Article 25 of the
Constitution. Matters of belief and faith, it was submitted, have been E
accepted to constitute the fundamental rights of the followers of the
concerned religion. Only such practices of faith, permitted to be
interfered with ~mder Article25( 1), as are opposed to public order, morality
and health. It was pointed out, that in addition to the above, a court
could interfere only when articles of faith violated the provisions of Part
F
III - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution. Insofar as the reliance
placed by the petitione;s on Articles 14, 15 and 21 is concerned, it was
submitted, that Articles 14, 15 and 21 are obligations cast on the State,
and as such, were clearly inapplicable to matters of 'personal law', which
cannot be attributed to State action.
97. While concluding his submissions, learned senior counsel also G
affirmed, that he would file an affidavit on behalf of the AIMPLB. The
aforesaid affidavit was duly filed, which reads as ruider:
"I. I am the Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board
which has been arraigned as Respondent No.3 and as Respondent
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A No.8 respectively to the above-captioned Writ Petitions. 1 am
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case
and I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. I say and submit that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
will issue an advisory through its Website. Publications and Social
B Media Platforms and thereby advise the persons who perform
'Nikah' (marriage) and request them to do the following:-
(a) At the time of performing 'Nikah' (Marriage), the person
performing the 'Nikah' will advise the Bridegroom/Man that in
case of differences leading to Talaq the Bridegroom/Man shall
c not pronounce three divorces in one sitting since it is an undesirable
practice in Shariat;
(b) That at the time of performing 'Nikah' (Marriage), the person
performing the 'Nikah' will advise both the Bridegroom/Man
and the Bride/Woman to incorporate a condition in the
o 'Nikahnama' to exclude resorting to pronouncement of three
divorces by her husband in one sitting.
3. I say and submit that, in addition, the Board is placing on
record, that the Working Committee of the Board had earlier
already passed certain resolutions in the meeting held on I Slh
E and l 6lh April, 2017 in relation to Divorce (Talaq) in the Muslim
community. Thereby it was resolved to convey a code 6f
conduct/guidelines to be followed in the matters of divorce
particularly emphasizing to avoid pronouncement of three
divorces in one sitting. A copy of the resolution dated April 16,
2017 alongwith the relevant Translation of Resolution Nos. 2, 3,
F 4 & 5 relating to Talaq (Divorce) is enclosed herewith for the
pernsal of this Hon'ble Court andmarkedasAnnexureA-1 (Colly)
[Page Nos.4 to 12) to the present Affidavit."
Based on the above affidavit, it was contended, that social reforms with
reference to 'personal law' must emerge from the concerned community
G itself. It was reiterated, that no court should have any say in the matter
ofreforms to 'personal law'. It was submitted, that it was not within the
. domain of judicial discretion to interfere with the matters of 'personal
law' except on grounds depicted in Article 25( 1) of the Constitution. It
was contended, that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' was not liable to be
H set aside, on any of the above grounds.
- SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 987
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJT]

98. While supplementing the contentions noticed in the preceding A
paragraph, it was submitted, that Article 25(2)(b) vested the power with
the legislature, to inte1fere with 'personal law' on the ground of social
welfare and reform. It was therefore contended, that the prayer made
by the petitioner and those supporting the petitioner's case before this
Court, should be addressed to the members of the community who are B
competent to amend the existing traditions, and alternatively to the
legislature which is empowered to legislatively abrogate the same, as a
measure of social welfare and reform. With the above observations,
learned senior counsel prayed for the rejection of the prayers made by
the petitioners.
99. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, entered
c
appearance on behalf of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, i.e., respondent no. I in
Suo Motu W1it Petition (Civil) No.2 of2015 and respondentno.9 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.118 of2016. At the beginning of his submissions,
learned senior counsel stated, that he desired to endorse each one of the
submissions advanced before this Court by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior D
Advocate. We therefore hereby record the aforesaid contention of
learned senior counsel.
100. In addition to the above, it was submitted, that the cause
raised by the petitioner (and others) before this Court was clearly
frivolous. It was submitted, that under the Muslim 'personal law' - E
'Shariat', parties at the time of executing 'nikahnama' (marriage deed)
are free to incorporate terms and conditions, as may be considered suitable
by them. It was submitted, that it was open to the wife, at the time of
executing 'nikahnama', to provide therein, that her husband would not
have the right to divorce her through a declaration in the nature of' talaq-
e-biddat'. It was therefore submitted, that it was clearly misconceived F
for the petitioner to approach this Court to seek a declaration against the
validity of 'talaq-e-biddat'. Alternatively, it was contended, that after
the enactment of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, all citizens of India
whether male or female, irrespective of the faith they professed, have
the option to be governed by the provisions of the said Act, instead of G
their own 'personal law'. It was therefore contended, that spouses
belonging to a particular religious denomination, had the choice to opt for
a secular and non-religious law, namely, the Special Marriage Act, 1954,
and such of the parties who accept the choice (even if they profess the
Muslim religion), would automatically escape from all religious practices,
H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A including 'talaq-e-biddat'. It was therefore contended, that such of the
couples who married in terms of their 'personal law', must be deemed
to have exercised their conscious option to be regulated by the 'personal
law', under which they were married. Having exercised the aforesaid
option, it was submitted, that it was not open to a Muslim couple to then
B plead; against the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'. It was submitted, that
when parties consent to marry, their consent does not extend to the
choice of the person with reference to whom the consent is extended,
but it also implicitly extends to the law by which the matrimonial alliances
are to be regulated. If the consent is to marry in consonance with the
'personal law', then the rigours of'personal law' would regulate the
C procedure for dissolution of marriage. And likewise, ifthe consent is to
marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the consent is to be governed
by the provisions of the aforesaid legislation. In such a situation, it was
submitted, that a person, who had consciously opted for the matrimonial
alliance under 'personal law' cannot complain, that the 'personal law'
D _ was unfavourable or discriminatory. It was submitted, that in the above
view of the matter, the very filing of the instant petition before this Court,
and the support of the petitioner's cause by those who have been
· impleaded, or had appeared to represent the petitioner's cause, must be
deemed to be wholly misconceived in law.
101. The second submission advanced at the hands of the learned
E senior counsel, was that the issues raised l:iy the petitioner with reference
to the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq were matters oflegislative
policy, and could not (though learned counsel truly meant-ought not) be
interfered with through the judicial process. In this behalf, learned senior
. counsel invited the Court's attention to Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of
F India32 , wherein the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, with the following prayers:
"(i) A writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the
question of enacting a common civil code for all citizens of India.
(ii) To declare Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)
G Act, 1986 as void being arbitrary and discriminatory and in
violation ofArticles 14 and 15 and Articles 44, 38 39 and 39-A of
the Constitution of India.
(iii) To direct the respondents not to enact Shariat Act in respect
H "{1994) Suppl. (1) sec 713
. SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 989
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

of those adversely affecting the dignity and rights of Muslim A
women and against their protection."
It was pointed out, that this Court dismissed the above writ petition by
observing, "these are all matters for legislature. The court cannot legislate
on these matters."
102. Reliance was also placed on the Ahmedabad Women Action B
Group case 30 • It was submitted that this Court considered the following
issues during the course of adjudication of the above matter.
"(i) Whether Muslim Personal Law which allows Polygamy is
void as offending Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
c
(ii) Whether Muslim Personal Law which enables a Muslim male
to give unilateral Talaq to his wife without her consent and without
resort to judicial process of courts, is void as it offends Articles
13, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
(iii) Whether the mere fact that a Muslim husband takes more D
than one wife is an act of cruelty."
103. It was pointed out, that having heard the above matter, the
same was dismissed by recording the following observations in paragraph
4 of the judgment:
".t\t the outset, we would like to state that these writ petitions do E
not deserve disposal on merits inasmuch as the arguments
advanced by the learned Senior Advocate before us wholly involve
issues of State policies with which the Court will not ordinarily
have any concern. Further, we find that when similar attempts
were made, of course by others; on earlier occasions this Court
F
held that the remedy lies somewhere else and not by knocking at
the doors of the courts."
104. Having raised the two preliminruy objections with reference
to the ente11ainment of the prayer made by the petitioner, learned counsel
invited the.Court's attention to abolition of the practice of'talaq-e-biddat'
in other countries. It was submitted, that (-for details, refer to Part-5 - G
Abrogation of the practice of'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world
over, in Islamic, as well as, non-Islamic States), the above contention
was adopted both by the petitioner, as well as, those who supported the
petitioner's cause, as also by the Union oflndia, in order to contend, that
· the practice of'talaq-e-biddat' has been done away with in other Islamic H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A countries, as a matter of social reform, on account of its being abhorrent,
and also unilateral and arbitrary. It was submitted, that the constitutional
validity of 'personal law' in India, cannot be tested on the basis of enacted
legislations of other countries. At this juncture, learned senior counsel
desired lL5 to notice, that the instant submission had been advanced without
B prejudice to the contention being canvassed by him, that the validity of
'personal law' cannot be tested at all, with reference to the fundamental
rights vested in individuals under Part III of the Constitution, for the
reason, that 'personal law' cannot be treated as law within the meaning
ofArticle 13 of the Constitution.
105. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, then
C endeavoured to establish the validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq. It
was submitted, that out of the five schools of Sunni Muslims 'talaq-e-
biddat' was considered a valid form of divorce of four of the said schools.
It was submitted, that the above position was accepted by the Delhi
High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case4, wherein in paragraph 26, the
D High Court observed" .....It is accepted by all schools oflaw that 'talaq-
e-biddat' is sinful, yet some schools regarded it as valid ..... ". It has also
been acknowledged by the High Courts in different judgments rendered
by them (-for details, refer to Part-6 - Judicial pronouncements, on the
subject of 'talaq-e-biddat'). It was accordingly sought to be inferred,
that once it was established as a fact, that certain schools of Shia Muslims
E believed' talaq-e-biddat' to be a valid form of divorce, the consequence
that would follow would be, that cohabitation amongst the spouses after
the pronouncement of 'talaq-e-biddat' would be sinful, as per the
injunction of the Quran, in 'sura' 2, Al Baqara Ayah 230. The same is
reproduced hereunder:
F "And if he has divorced her (for the third time), then she is not
lawful to him afterward until (after) she marries a husband other
than him. And if the latter husband divorces her (or dies), there
is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning
to each other if they think that they can keep (within)the limits of
Allah. These are the limits of Allah, which He makes clear to a
G people who know."
It was pointed out, that the belief that after a husband has divorced his
wife by pronouncing talaq thrice, it had been interfered that the three
pronouncements should be treated as a singular pronouncement. It was
pointd out, that High Courts have no such jurisdiction as has been
H exercised by them on the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat'. It was accordingly
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 991
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJl]

asserted, that the above action constituted the creation of inroads into A
'personal law' of Muslims, which stood protected under Article 25 of
the Constitution. In this behalf, it was also submitted, that while deciding
the issue whether a belief or a practice constituted an integral part of
religion, this Court held, that the above question needed to be answered
on the. basis of the views of the followers of the faith, and none else. 1n B
order to support his above submission, learned senior counsel, placed
reliance on the Sardar Syedna Taber Saifuddin Saheb case2x, wherein
this Court observed as under:
"The content of Articlles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up
" for consideration before this Court in the Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha c
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt; Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das v.

- The State of Orissa; Sri Ventatamana Devan.1 v. The State of
Mysore; Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali and
several other cases and the main principles underlying these
grovisions have by these decisions been glaced beyond D
controversy. The first is that the grotection of these articles is
not limited to matters of doctrine or belief the;y extend also to
acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a
gyarantee for 1ituals and observances, ceremonies and modes
of worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is
that what constitutes an essential gart of a religious or religious E
practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the
doctrine of a garticular religion and include gractices which are
regarded by the communit;y as a part of its religion".
It was pointed out, that the above view of this Court had been affirmed
by this Court in N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devasom Board33 , wherein F
in paragraphs 9 and 16, i.t was observed as under:
"9. This Court, in Seshammal v. State ofT.N., (1972) 2 SCC 11
., again reviewed the principles underlying the protection engrafted
in Articles 25 and 26 in the context ofa challenge made to abolition
of hereditary right of Archaka, and reiterated the position as
G
hereunder : (SCC p.21, paras 13-14)
"13. This Court in Sardar Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of
Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853 has summarized the position in law
as follows (pp.531 and 532):
I
:) " (2002) s sec 106 H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 'The content of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up
for consideration before this Court in Commr., Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirnr
Mutt, Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa,
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, Durgah Committee,
Ajmer v. Syed. Hussain Ali 15 and several other cases and the

l
B
main principles underlying these provisions have by these
decisions been placed beyond controversy. The first is that the
protection of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or
belief they extend also to acts done in pursuance ofreligion and
therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances,
c ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of
religion. The second is that what constitutes an essential part of
a religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts
with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include
practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its
-
religion.'
D
14. Bearing these principles in mind, we have to approach the
controversy in the present case."
16. It is now well settled that Article 25 secures to eve1y person,
subject of course to public order, health and morality and other
provisions of Part Ill, including Article 17 freedom to entertain
·E and exhibit by outward acts as well as propagate and disseminate
such religious belief according to his judgment and conscience
for the edification of others. The right of the State to impose
such restrictions as are desired or found necessary on grounds
of public order, health and morality is inbuilt in Articles 25 and 26
F itself. Article 25(2)(b) ensures the right of the State to make a
law providing for social welfare and reform besides throwing
open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus and any such rights of the Sate
or of the communities or classes of society were also considered
to need due regulation in the process of harmonizing the various
G rights. The vision of the founding fathers of the Constitution to
liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence to mere
traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational basis has
found expression in the form of Article 17. The legal position
that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends a guarantee
H for rituals and observances. ceremonies and modes of worship
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 993
[JAGOISH SINGH KHEHAR, CH]

which are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes A
an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided
by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion
or practices regarded as parts of religion, came to be equally
firmly laid down."
In continuation ofthe above submission, learned senior counsel also placed B
reliance on Sri Adi Visheshwara ofKashi VishwanathTemple, Varanasi
v. State of U.P. 34 , wherein this Court held as under:
"28 .....All secular activities which may be associated with religion
but which do not relate or constitute an essential part of it may
be amenable to State regulations but what constitutes the essential C
part of religion may be ascertained primarily from the doctrines
of that religion itself according to its tenets, historical background
and change in evolved process etc. The concept of essential ity
is not itself a determinative factor. It is one of the circumstances
to be considered in adjudging whether the particular matters of
religion or religious practices or belief are an integral part of the D
religion. It must be decided whether the practices or matters
are considered integral by the community itself. Though not
conclusive, this is also one of the facets to be noticed. The
practice in question is religious in character and whether it could
be regarded as an integraland essential part of the religion and if E
the court finds upon evidence adduced before it that it is an
integral or essential part of the religion, Article 25 accords
protection to it. ..... " . .
. ., .
It was the pointed contention oflearned senior counsel, that the judgments
rendered by the High Courts on the subject of 'talaq-e-bidda((-for details,
F
refer to Part-6 - Judicial pronouncements, on the subject of 'talaq-e-
biddat'), were unsustainable in law, because the High Courts had
substituted ~heir own views with ref~.~~nce to their undersfatiding of
'talaq-e-biddat'. It was also pointed out, that supplanting of the views of
one of the schools on the beliefs of the other four schools, of Sunni
Muslims, with reference to 'talaq-e-biddat', was in clear breach of the G
understanding of Muslims.
106. Learned senior counsel also disputed the reliance on
International Conventions by all those who had assisted this Court on
behalf of the petitioner. In this behalf, it was pointed out, that reliance on
" (1997) 4 sec 606 H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A International Conventions, particularly on CEDAW was wholly misplaced,
since India had expressed a clear reservation to the Conventions in order
to support its constitutional policy of non-interference in the personal
affairs of any community. In this behalf, while making a particular
reference to CEDAW, it was submitted, that the above declarations/
reservations were first made at the time of signing the aforesaid
B
conventions and thereafter, even at the time of ratification. In this behalf,
it was pointed out, that the first declaration was made by India in the
followingfornmt:-
"i) With regard to articles 5(a) and 16(1) of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms ofDisciminationAgainst Women,
c the Govemmetn of the Republic of India declares that it shall
abide by and ensure these provisions in conformity with its policy
of non-interefernece in the personal affairs of any Community
without its initiative and consent."
In view of the clear stance adopted at the time of signing the Convention,
D as also, at the time of its ratification, it was submitted, that there could
be no doubt, that India had itself committed that it would not interfere
with personal affairs of any community, without the initiative and consent
of the concerned community. It was submitted, that the aforesaid
commitment could not be ignored by the Union of India. While addressing
E this Court on the issue under reference, it was submitted, that the position
adopted by the Union of India, was in clear derogation of the stance
adopted on behalf of the India, as has been detailed above.
107. Learned senior counsel also seriously disputed the
submissions advanced at the hands of the petitioners based on repudiation
F of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' in various secular countries with
Muslims in the majority, as also, theocratic States, through express
legislation on the issue (-for details, refer to Part-5 -Abrogation of the
practice of'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world over, in Islamic, as
well as, non-Islamic States). In this behalf, it was submitted, that 'personal
. law' of classes and sections of the society and/or of religious
G denominations are sought to be protected by the Constitution by raising
them to the high position of fundamental rights. It was accordingly
asserted, that what was available to such classes and sections of society,
as also, to the religious denominations as a matter of fundamental right
under the Constitution, could not be negated, because other countries
H had enacted legislations for such annulment. Further more, it was
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 995
[JAGDJSH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

submitted, that legislation is based on the collective will of the residents A
of a particular country, and as such, the will of the residents of a foreign
country, cannot be thrust upon the will of the residents in India. While
adopting the position canvassed on behalf of learned senior counsel who
had preceded him, it was pointed out, that it was open to the legislature
in India, to likewise provide for such legislation, because entry 5 of the
B
Coucurrent List contained in the Seventh Schedule allows legislation
even with reference to matters governed by 'personal law'. Additionally,
it was submitted, that provision in this behalf was available in Article
25(2)(b), which provides that for espousing the cause of social welfare
and reform it was open to the legislature even to legislate on matters
governed under 'personal law'. It was therefore contended that all C
such submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners need to be ignored.
108. Mr. V. Giri, Senior Advocate, entered appearance on behalf
of Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind (represented by its General Secretary, 1
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi)-respondent no.7 in Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of2015 and respondent no.6 in Writ Petition D
(Civil) No. 118 of2016. It would be relevant to mention, at the outset,
that learned senior counsel endorsed the submissions advanced by Mr.
Kapil Sibal and Mr. Raju Ramachandra, Senior Advocates, who had
assisted this Court before him. Learned senior counsel focused his
contentions, firstly to the challenge raised to the validity of Section 2 of
the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)ApplicationAct, 1937, insofar as, it E
relates to 'talaq-e-biddat' on the ground, that the same being
unconstitutional, was unenforceable. Learned senior counsel, in order
to raise his challenge, first and foremost, drew our attention to Sections
2 and 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (-
for details, refer to Part-4- Legislation in India, in the field of Muslim F
'personal law'). It was submitted, that Section 2 aforesaid, commenced
with a non obstante clause. It was pointed out, that the aforesaid non
obstante clause was referable only to amplify the exclusion of such
customs and usages, as were contrary to Muslim 'personal law' ~
'Shariat'. It was submitted, that reference was pointedly made only to
such customs and usages as were not in consonance with the Muslim G
'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was asserted, that the mandate of Section
2 was aimed at making Muslim 'personal Jaw' - 'Shariat' as "the rnle of
decision", even when customs and usages were to the contrary. It was
sought to be explained, that the Shariat Act neither defined nor expounded,
the parameters of the same, with reference to subjects to which Sections H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 2 and 3 were made applicable. It was therefore submitted, that the
enactment under reference did not introduce Muslim 'personal law' - ·
'Shariat', as the s~me was the law applicable to the Muslims even prior
to the enactment of the said legislation. In this behalf: it was pointed out,
that in different parts of the country customs and usages were being
applied even with reference to the Muslims overriding their 'personal
B
law'. In order to substantiate the above contention learned senior counsel
made a pointed reference to the statement of objects and reasons of the
above enactment, which would reveal that Muslims of British India had
persistently urged that customary law and usages should not take the
place of Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was also pointed out, that
C the statement of objects and reasons also highlight that his client, namely,
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind had supported the demand of the applicability
of the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', for adjudication of disputes
amonst Muslims, and had urged, that custom and usage to the contrary,
should not have an overriding effect. It was pointed out, that this could
be done only because Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' was in existence
D and was inapplicable to the adjudication of disputes amongst Muslims,
even prior to the above enactment in 1937. Understood in the aforesaid
manner, it was submitted, that Muslim 'personal law' as a body oflaw,
was only perpetuated, by the Shariat Act. It was submitted, that the
Muslim 'personal law' had not been subsmned by the statute nor had the
E 1937 Act codified the Muslim 'personal law'. It was submitted, that the
1937 legislation was only statutorily declared that the Muslim 'personal
law', as a set of rules, would govern the Muslims in India, and that, it
would be the Muslim 'personal law' that would have an overriding effect
over any custom or usage to the contrary. It was therefore reiterated,
that the legislature which enacted the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
F Application Act, 1937, neither modified nor amended even in a small
measure, the Muslim 'personal law' applicable to the Muslims in India,
nor did the legislature while enacting the above enactment, subsmned
the Muslim 'personal law', and therefore, the character of the Muslim
'personal law' did not undergo a change on account of the enactment of
G the Muslim Personal Law(Shariat) Application Act, 1937. According to
learned senior counsel, the Muslim 'personal law' did not metamorphized
into a statute, and as such, the rights and duties of Muslims in India
continued to be governed even after the enactment of the Shariat Act,
as before. It was pointed out, that the Shariat Act did not substitute, nor
did it provide for any different set of rights and obligations other than
H
. . . '

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 997
[JAGDISH ~INGH KHEHAR, CJI] .
. . . . '.

those which \.ve_re recognized and prevalent as M:uslim 'persomil law' - A
'Shariat'. A~ such, it was contended; that it was whol~y-tthju:stified to .<' ·:£'··

assume~ that Muslim 'personal law' - 'Sl!ariat' was given statutory effect,
. through the Shariat Act. It was ,th~refore submitt.ed. that a challenge to
the validity of Section 2 of the above enactment, so as to assail the
validitY o( 'talaq-e-biddat' as being conir,ary to the fundamental rights
contained in Part III of the Constitution, was an exercise in futility. Insofar B
as the instant assertion is concerned, learned senior counsel advanced
two submissions - firstly, that Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act, 1937 did not by itself bring about any law
providing for rights and obligations to be asserted and discharged by the
Muslims as a community, for the simple reason, that it only reaffirmed C
. the perpetuieties of the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', and as such,
. the rights and obligations of persons Which Were subjected to Muslim'
'personal law' ..:. 'Shariat', continued as they existed prior to the
enactment of the Shariat Act. And secondly, the Muslim 'personal law' -
'Sharfat', was neither transformed nor metamorphized by the Shariaf
D
Act, in the nature of crystalised rules and regulations, and as such, even·
if$ection 2 of the Mus.Jim I;>ersonal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
was struck down, the same woulq automatically revive the Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat', in view of the mandate contained in Article
• 25 of the Constitution. •Accordingly, it, was pointed out, that the
parameters of challenge, as were applicable to 'assail a statutory E
enactment, would not be applicable in the matter of assailing the Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat'. !twas also the contention oflearned sedor
counsel, that.under Article 25(1) of the Constitution the right tofreely
profess, practice and propagate religion, was a universal right, guaranteed
to every person, to act in affirmation of his own faith. H was submitted,
. ·that the above ambit was the core of the secular nature of the Indian F
Constitution. It was accordingly pointed out, that the confines of the
rights protected under Article 25(1 ), could be assailed on limited grounds
·of public order, rnoralityand. health, and also if, the provisions ofPart
III - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution were breached.
109. It was submitted, that a breach of the provisions contained G
in· Paii III - Fundamental Rights under the Constitution, could only be
invoked with reference to a State action, as only State action has to
conform to Articles 14, 15 and 21. It was therefore subn1itted, that a
facial subjugation of the right under Artide. 25( 1) to.the other provisons
of the Constitution would be inapplicable in the case of 'personal law', H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A · that has no source to any statute, or State action. It was submitted, that
the. Shariat Act affirms the applicability of Muslim 'personal law' -
'Shariat' and perpetuates it by virtue of Section 2 thereof. And therefore,
it would not give the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' a statutory flavour.
llO. It was also submitted, that Sunnis were a religious
B denomination within the meaning ofArticle 25 of the Constitution, and
therefore, were subject to public policy, morality and health. Sunni
Muslims, therefore had a right inter alia to manage their own affairs in
matters relating to religion. It was pointed out, that it could not be gainsaid,
that marriage and divorce were matters of religion. Therefore, Sunnis
as a religious denomination, were entitled to manage their own affairs in
C matters of marriage and divorce, which are in consonance with the
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was therefore submitted, that the
provisions relating to marriage and divorce, as were contained in the
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', were entitled to be protected as a
denominational right, under A11icle 25 of the Constitution.
D 111. Mr. V. Shekhar, Mr. Somya Chakravarti, Senior Advocates,
Mr.Ajit Wagh, Ajmal Khan, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.K. Biju, Mr.
Banerjee, Mr. Ashwani Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek C. Solsha, Ms. Rukhsana,
Ms. Farah Faiz, Advocates also assisted the Court. Their assistance to
the Court, was on issues canvassed by other learned counsel who had
E appeared before them. The submissions advanced by them, have already
been recorded above. For reasons of brevity, it is not necessary for us
to record the same submission once again, in the names ofleamed counsel
referred to above. All that needs to be mentioned is, that we have taken
due notice of the nuances pointed out, and their emphasis on different
aspects of the controversy.
F
" Part-9.
Consideration of the rival contentions. and our conclusions:
·112. During the course of our consideration, we will endeavour
to examine a series of complicated issues. We will need to determine,
G the le.gal sanctity of 'talaq-e-biddat' -triple talaq. This will enable us to
ascertain, whether the practice oftalaq has a legislative sanction, because
it is the petitioner's case, that it is so through express legislation (-the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937). But the stance
adopted on behalf of those contesti.ng the petitioner's claim is, that its
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 999
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

statUre is that of 'personal law', and. on th~~ accm,m!, the practice of A
'talaq"e-biddat' has a constitutional protection. ·
113. Having concluded one way orthe other, we will necid to .
determine whether divorce by way of 'talaq-e-biddat' -triple talaq, falls
foul of Part Ill - fundamental Rights of the. Constitution (this
determination would be subject to, the acceptance ,of the p~t'itioner's B
contention, that the practice has statutory sanction). However, if We
conclude to the contrary, namely, that the 'talaq-ecbiddat' - triple talaq,
-has the stature of 'personal law', We will have to determine the binding
effect of the practice, and whether it can be inte1fered with on the judicial
si.de by this Court. The instant course would be necessary, ·in view of
the mandate contained in Article 25of the Constitution, which has b_een C
relied upon by those who are opposing the petitioner's cause ..
114. Even if we agree with the proposition that 'talaq-e-biddat' -
· triple talaq constitutes the 'personal law' governing Muslims, on the issue
of divorce, this Court will still need to examine, whether the practice of
'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq, violates the acceptable norms of" ... public D
order, morality and health anci to the other provisions ... ~· ofPart III of
the Constitution (-for that, is the case set up by the petitioner). ~n if
the conclusions after the debate travelling the course narrated in the
foregoing paragraph does not lead to any fruitful results for the petitfoner 's
cause, it is their case, that the practice of 'talaqce"biddat' being socially E
repulsive should be declared as being violative of constitutional morality
- a concept invoked by this Court, according to the petitioner, to interfere
with on: the ground that it would serve a cause in larger public interest.
The petitioners' cause, in the instant context is supported by the abrogation
of the practice of'talaq-e-biddat', the world over in countries with sizeable
Muslim populations including theocratic Islamic States. The following F
examination, shall traverse the course recorded herein above.
· ··I. Does the judgment of the Privy Council in the Rashid Ahmad case,
upholding 'talag-e-biddat', reguire a relook?
. _ 115. It would not be necessary for this debate - about the validity G
of 'talaq-e-biddat' under the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', to be
prolonged or complicated, ifthe decision rendered by the Privy Council,
in the Rashid Ahmad case 1 is to be considered as the final word on its
validity, as also, on the irrevocable nature of divorce, by way of 'talaq-e-
biddat'. The debate would end forthwit~. The aforesaid judgment was
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A rendered by applying the Muslim 'personal law'. In the above judgment,
'talaq-e-biddat' was held as valid and binding. The pronouncement in
the. Rashid Ahmad case 1 is of extreme significance, because Anisa
Kha tun - the erstwhile wife and her former husband Ghyas-ud-din had
continued to cohabit and live together with her husband, for a period of
B fifteen years, after the pronouncement of 'talaq~e-biddat'. During this
post divorce cohabitation, five children were born to Anisa Khatun,
through Ghiyas-ud-din. And yet, the Privy Council held, that the marital
relationship between· the parties had ceased forthwith, on the
pronouncement of 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq. The Privy Council also
held, that the five children born to AnisaKhatun, could not be considered
C as the legitimate children ofGhyas-ud-din, and his erstwhile wife. The
children born to Anisa Khatun after the parties stood divorced, were
therefore held as disentitled to inherit the property of Ghyas-ud-din. The
judgment in the Rashid Ahmad case 1 was rendered in 1932. The asserted
statutory status of Muslim 'personal law' (as has been canvassed by the
D petitioners), emerged from the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act, 193 7. The 'Shariat' Act expressly provided,
that the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', would constitute "the rule of
decision", in causes wherethe parties were Muslim. It is not in dispute,
that besides other subjects, consequent upon the enactment of the Shariat
Act, dissolution of marriage amongst Muslims, byway of'talaq', would
E also have to be in consonance with the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'.
As noticed herein above, 'talaq-e-biddat' is one of the forms of dissolution
of marriage by 'talaq', amongst Muslims. According to the petitioners
case, the issue needed a fresh look, of the conferment ofstatutoty status
to Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was submitted, that afier having
F acquired statutory status, the questions and subjects (including 'talaq-e-
biddat'), would have to be in conformity (-and not in conflict), with the
provisions of Part III - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution. Needless
to mention, that all these are important legal questions, requiring
examination.
116. In our considered view, the matter would most certainly also
G require a fresh look,.because various High Courts, having examined the
practice of divorce amongst Muslims, by way of 'ta!aq-e-biddat', have
arrived at the conclusion, that the judgment in the Rashid Ahmad case 1
was rendered on an incorrect understanding, of the Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat'.
H
SHAYARA Bf\Np.v.·.·.·,·~,Nr9~i.or~\~~t/IA AND.~THERS 1001
[JAQDISH SINGH KH~I-!AR; ..CJI] ., "<, .....
.....:.·:.:--:'.">:~)·~·, :. ·-~:·.'_.:.,.·~.>:::. :.:_·_-\:::i:;:'.:;;:_~·:.~-~'"·>-::,\_ ..:-· ··_:.·;:.·.:.~' .... ,' >
:·· . >"::· . ' .·-' .·,_.~
.J J7, lfthe:Musl,ipi. R¢r$qna.P,;a:yt.(Sh~riat}-!\ppli¥ati()!'!,f\c_t, 1937, A
.· had incprpor?ted t\le. niaim~r in,..whi~4,q11~iiojls .rega.fdii1(iptystate
· succession, speda I prop~rfy o(femaJes inciudhig p'e~sonal property
inherited or obtained under contract or giff or matterssuch as maitiage,
dissolution of marriage; including talaq, ila,jiPi}r, lii0;~)ll~ anc\ 1Pl!paraat,
maintenance,. dower, guardianship; ;gifts;· trusts iind'tiu~rpfopertles, and
wakfs (-as in Section 2 thereof),. had .i6 be dealt with, as per Muslim B
'personal law' - 'Shariat' according to the petitioners, it would be quite
a different matter. All the same, the Shariat Act did not describe how
the above questions and subjects had to be dealt with.· And therefore,
for settlement of disputes amongst Mµslims, it would need to be first
determined, what the Muslim 'personal law'; with reference to the C
disputation, W'1.S. Whatever it was, would in 'terms Section .2 of the of
193 7 Act, constitute "the rule of decision". After the Privy Council had
. rendered the judgment in the Rashid Ahmad case 1, and well after the
. asserted. statutory status came. ~o be conferred on Muslim. 'personal
law' - 'Shariat', the issue cameupf~r'consideratfon before the Kera.la
High Court in A. Yusuf Rawiher v. Sowramrna35 , wherein, the High D
Court exaii:ijned the above decision of the Privy Council in the Rashid
Ahmad case 1, and expressed, that.the views ofthe British Courts on -
· Muslim 'personal law', Were based on an incorrect understanding of
'Shariat'. In the above judgment, a learned Sfo.gle Judge (justice V.R
Krishna Iyeri as he then was) of the Kerala High Court, recorded the E
following observations: ··
. "7. There has been cp~sider~ble argtiment at the bar:- and
prece<;l~nts have beeriJ>.iled up by t:ach side - as to. the meaning
to b;e l}iveiH.o *e expr~ssfon 'failed to provide for her
.. mainten:mce'. and about the grounds re~ognised as valid for F
·dissolutionuhder Muslim law.. Since infallibility is not an attribute
of the· judiciary, the·view has been ventured by Muslim jurists
that the·Indo~Angtian judicialexposition of the Islamic law of
divorce has not exactly been just to the Holy Prophet or the
Holy Book. Marginal distortions are inevitable when the Judicial
Committee. in Dciwning ..$treet has to. interpret Manu and G
. Milhammad oflndia and Arabia. The soul of a cul ti.ire - law is
largely :the. .fcirmalized and enforceable expression of a ·
· community'.s cultural norn1s - c;mnotbe fully lfliderstood by alien
"AIR 1971 Kef 26(.
H

,.
I
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A minds. The view that the Muslim husband enjoys an arbitrary,
unilateral power to inflict instant divorce does not accord with
Islamic injunctions .... It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male
enjoys. under the Ouaranic law, unbridled authority to liquidate
the marriage. "The whole Ouoran expressly forbids a man to
seek pretexts for divorcing his wife. so long as she remains faithful
B
and obedient to him. "if they (namely, women) obey you, then do
not seek a way againstthem"." COuaran IV:34). The Islamic
"law gives to the man primarily the faculty of dissolving the
marriage, if the wife. by her indocilitv or her bad character,
renders the married life unhappy; but in the absence of serious
c reasons. no man can justify a divorce. either in the eye of religion
or the law. If he abandons his wife or puts her away in simple
caprice, he draws upon himself the divine anger. for the curse of
God. said the Prophet, rests on him who repudiates his wife
capriciously." As the learned author, Ahmad A. Gal wash notices,
the pagan Arab, before the time of the Prophet, was absolutely
D
. free to repudiate his wife whenever it suited his whim, but when
the Prophet came He declared divorce to he "the most disliked
of lawful things in the ·sight of God. He was indeed never tired
of expressing his. abhorrence of divorce. Once he said: 'God
created not anything on the face of the e!lrth which He loveth
E more than the act of manumission., (of slaves) nor did He create
anything on the face of the earth which he detesteth more than
the act of divorce". Commentators on the Quoran have rightly
observed - and this tallies with the law now administered in
some Mtilsim countries like Iraq - that the husband must satisfy
. the .court about the reasons for divorce. However. Muslim law,
F
as applied in India. has taken a course contrary to the spirit of
what the Prophet or the Holy Quoran laid down and the same
,misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife's right to
divorce." ·
118. · Withotitpoint~dly examining the issue of the validity of'talaq-
G e-biddat', under the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', this Court in
Fuzltinbi v. K. Khader Vali 36, recorded the following observations:
"20. Before we bid farewell to Fazlunbi it is necessary to mention
tha! Chief Justice Baharul Islam, in an elaborate judgment replete
H "(1980) 4 sec 12s
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1003
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJIJ

with quotes from the Holy Quoran, has exposed the error of A
early English authors and judges who dealt with talaq in Muslim
Law as good even if pronounced at whim cir in tantrnm, and
argued against the diehard view of Batchelor J. ILR 30 Born
539thatthis view 'is good in law, though badin theology'. Maybe,
when the point directly arises, the question will have to be B
considered by this cow1, but enough unto the day the evil thereof
and we do not express our opinion on this question as it does not
call for a decision in the present case."
The above observations lead to the inference, that the proposition oflaw
pronounced by the Privy Council in the RashidAhlpad case 1, needed a C
relook. · · ·
119. It would be relevant to mention, that inthe interregnum, the
validity of 'talaq-e-biddat' was considered by a learned Single Judge
(Justice Baharnl Islam, as he then \Vas) of the Gauhati High Court, in
the Jiauddin Ahmed case 2, wherein, the High Court took aview different
from the one recorded by the Privy Council (-in the Rashid Ahmad case 1). D
In doing so, it relied on. 'hadiths', 'ijma' and 'qiyas'. The issue was
·again examined, by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in the
Mst. RukiaKhatun case 3• Yet again, the High Court(speaking through,
Chief Justice BaharuUslam, as he then was), did not concilr with the
. view propounded by the Privy Council. The matter was also examined E
by aSingle Judge (Justice BadarDurrezAhmed, as he then was) of the
Delhi High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case 4 • Herein again, by placing
reliance on relevant 'hadiths', the Delhi High Court ca-me to- the
· conclusion, that the legal position expressed by the Privy Council on
'talaq•e-biddat', was not in consonance with the Muslim 'personal law'.
The Kerala High Court, in the Nazeer case 5 (authored by, Justice A. F
Muharned Mustaque) highlighted the woeful conditionofMuslim wives,
because of the practice of.'talaq-e-biddat', and recorded-its views on ·
the matter.
'120. In view of the position exp~essed.hereinabove, we are of the
considered view, that the opinion expressed by the Privy Council with G
reference to 'talaq-e-biddat', in the Rashid Ahmad case 1, holding that
'talaq-e-biddat' results in finally and irrevocably severing the matrimonial
tie between spouses, the very moment it is pronounced, needs to be
examined afresh. More.particularly, because the validity of the same as
an approved concept, of Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', was not H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A evaluated at that juncture (-as it indeed could not have been, as the
legislation was not available, when the Privy Council had rendered its
judgment), in the backdrop of the Shariat Act, and also, .the provisions of
the Constitution of India.
II. Has 'tafag-e-biddat', which is concededly sinful. sanction of!aw?
B 121. The petitioners, and others who support the petitoner's cause,
have vehemently contended, that 'talaq-e-biddat', does not have its source
of origin from the Quran. The submission does not need a serious
exam.ination, because even 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-hasan' which
the petitioners acknowledge as - 'the most proper' ,.and - 'the proper'
c forms of divorce respectively, also do .not find rrierition in the Quran.
Despite the absence of any reference to 'talaq-e-ahsan' and 'talaq-e-
hasan' in the Quran, none of the petitioners has raised any challenge
thereto, on this score. A challenge to 'talaq-e:biddat' obviously cannot
be raised on this _ground. We are satisfied, that the different approved
practices of talaq among Muslims, have their origin in 'hadiths' and other
D sources of Muslim jurisprudence. And therefore, merely because it is
not expressly provided for or approved by the Quran, cannot be a valid
justification for setting aside the practice.
122. The petitioners actually call for a simple and summary disposal
'of the controversy, by requiring us to hold, that whatever is .irregular and
E sinful, cannot have the. sanction of law, The above prayer is supported
by contending, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is proclaimed as bad in theology. It
was submitted, that this practice. is clearly patriarchal, and therefore,
cannot be sustained in today's world of gender equality.' In order to
persuade this Court, to accept the petitioners' prayer - to declare the
F. practice of'talaq-e-biddat'.as unacceptable in law, the Court's attention
was invited to the fact, that the present controversy needed a similar
intervention, as had been adopted for doing away with similar patriarchal,
irregular and sinful practices amongst Hindus. In this behalf, reference
was made to the practices of 'Sati', 'Devadasi' and 'Polygamy'.

G 123 (i ). We may only highlight, that 'Sa ti' was commonly described
as -widow burning. The practice required a widow to immolate herself,
on her husband's pyre (or alternatively, to commit suicide shortly "fter
her husband's death). 'Sati 'just like 'talaq-e-biddat', had been in vogue
since tjme immemorial. It is believed, that the practice of' Sati' relates
back to the 1st century B.C .. On the Indian sub-continent, it is stated to
H
.. :·

SHAYARA HANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 1005
. [JAGDISH SINGH
. KHEHAR,
·. . CJI].
. ·

have gained popularity from the IO'h century A.D. The submission was, A
that just as 'Sati' had been declared as unacceptable, the practice of
'talaq-e-biddat' should likewise be declared as unacceptable in law. ·
(ii) 'Devadasi' translated literally means, a girl de.dicated to the worship·
and service of a' diety or temple. The· .surrender and service· of the
'Devadasi', in terms ofthe practice; was for life. This practice had also B
-been in vogue since time immorial, even though originally' Devadasis' ·
had a high status in society, because the Rulers/Kings of the time, were
patrons of temples. During British rule in India, the Rulers backing and
support to temples, waned off. It is believed, that after funds from the
Rulers stopped, to sustain themselves 'Devadasis' used dancing and C
singing as a means of livelihood. They also commenced to indulge in
. prostitution. The life of the 'Devadasi', thereupon came into disrepute,
and resulted in a life of destitution. The practice had another malady,
tradition forbade a 'Devadasi' from marrying.
(iii) So far as 'polygamy' is concerned, we are of the view that polygamy
is well µnderstood, and needs no_ elaboration. · ·D
124. We are of the "view, that tbe pta'etice·s i'eferred to by the .
petitioners, to support their elaim; need ·a further examination, to ·
understand how the practices were discontinued. We shall now record
·details, of how these practices, were abolished: ,
E
(i) Insofar as the practice of 'Sati' is concerned, its practice reached
alarming proportion between 181 S-1818, it is estimated that the incidence
of 'Sati' doubled during this period. A caiJ;paign to abolish 'Sati' was.
initiated by Christian missionaries (-like, Wil.Jiam Carey), and by Hindu
Brahmins (-like, Ram Mohan Roy). The provincial Goverrtment of Bengal
banned 'Sati 'in 1829, by w-ay oflegislation. This. was then followed by F ·
similar lawsb)iprincelySh1tes in India. Aftenhe practice wasbarred ..
by law, ttie' l~dian. Sati _Prev\!ntion Act,: I 9S8 "'as enacted, which .·.·
.crimnaliseci arty type of ~idiflg, ab~ttingor glOdfyingthe practice of'Sati'. •
• • • • • • ..... ' '. • • ...·.. :- • • - ' • ~1' ', • • • j . . -· . . • ·~ . • .

(ii) Insofar -a~. the practjce of'Devadasi' is concerned, soon after the
end of British rule, independentlndia pass~d the Madras Devadasi's G
(Prevention of Dedication) Act (-also called the Tamil Nadu Devadasis
I (Prevention of Dedication Act) on 09.l(U 947. The enactment made·
!'; prostitution illegal. The other legislations enacted on the same issue,
included the 1934 BombayDe"'.adasi Protection Act, the 1957.Bombay ·.··
' Protection (Extension) Act;and the Andhia Pradesh Devada.si · H
I
I
.•
I
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A (Prohibition of Dedication) Act of 1988. It is therefore apparent, that
the instant practice was done away with, through legislation:
(iii) The last of the sinful practices brought to our notice was 'polygamy'.
Polygamy was permitted amongst Hindus. In 1860, the Indian Penal
Code made 'polygamy' a criminal offence. The Hindu Mariage Act
B was passed in 1955. Section 5 thereof provides, the conditions for a
valid Hindu marriage. One of the conditions postulated therein was, that
neither of the parties to the matrimonial alliance should have a living
spouse, at the time of the marriage. It is therefore apparent, that the
practice of polygamy was not only done away with amongst Hindus, but
the same was also made punishable as a criminal offence." This also
C happened by legislation.
125. The factual and the legal position noticed in the foregoing
paragraph clearly brings out, that the practices of 'Sati ', 'Devadasi' and
'polygamy' were abhorrent, and could well be described as sinful. They
were clearly undesirable and surely bad in theology. It is however
D important to notice, that neither of those practices came to be challenged
before any court of law. Each of the practices to which our pointed
attention was drawn, came to be discontinued and invalidated by way of
legislative enactments. The instances cited on behalf of the petitioners
cannot therefore _be of much avail, with reference to the matter in hand,
E wherein, the prayer is for judicial intervention.
126. We would now venture to attempt an answer to the simple
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, for a summary disposal of the
petitioner's cause, namely, for declaring the practice of'talaq-e-biddat',
as unacceptable in law. In support of the instant prayer, it was submitted,
F that it could not be imagined, that any religious practice, which was
considered as a sin, by the believers of that very faith, could be considered
as enforceable in law. It was asserted, that what was sinful could not be
religious. It was also contended, that merely because a sinful practice
had prevailed over a long duration of time, it could best be considered as
a form of custom or usage, and not a matter of any binding faith. (This
G submission, is being dealt with in part N, immediately hereinafter). It
was submitted, that no court should find any difficulty, in declaring a
custom or usage - which is sinful, as unacceptable in law. It was also
the pointed assertion on behalf of the petitioners, that what was
sacrilegious could not ever be a part of Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. Ul\[ION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1007
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

The manner in which one learned counsel expressed the proposition, A ·
during the course of hearing, was very interesting. We may therefore
record the submission exactly iri the manner it was projected. Learned
counsel for evoking and arousing the Bench's conscience submitted, "if
something is sinful or abhorrent in the eyes of God, can any law by man .
validate it"; It seems to us, that the suggestion was, that 'talaq-e-biddat' B
. did not flow out of any religious foundation, and therefore, the practice
need not be considered as religious at all. One of the non-professional
individuals assisting this Court on behalf of the petitioners', went to the
extent of stating, that the fear of the fact, that th~ wife could be thrown
out of the matrimonial house, at any time, was like a sword hanging over
the matrimonial alliance, during the entire duration of the marriage. It C
was submitted, that the fear of'talaq-e-biddat', was a matter of continuous
mental torture, for the female spouse. We were told, that the extent of
the practice being abhorrent, can be visualized from the aforesaid,
position. It was submitted, that the practice was extremely self-effacing,
and continued to be a cause of insecurity, for the entire duration of the D
matrimonial life. It was pointed out, that this practice violated the pious
and noble prescripts of the Quran. It was highlighted, that even those
who had appeared on behalf of the respondents, had acknowledged,
that the practice of'talaq-e-biddat' was described as irregular and sinful,
even amongst Muslims. It was accordingly asserted, that it was accepted
by one and all; that the practice was bad in theology. It was also E
acknowledged, that it had no place in modem day society. Learned counsel
therefore suggested, that triple talaq should be simply declared as
unacceptable in law, and should be finally done away with: .
127. A simple is8-ue, would obviously ,have a simple answer.
Irespective of what has been stated by the learned counsel for the rival F
parties, there can be no dispute on two issues. Firstly, that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' has been in vogue since the period ofUmar, which is
· roughly more than 1400 years ago. Secondly, that each one of learned
counsel; irrespective of who they represented, (-the petitioners or the
respondents), acknowledged in one voice, that 'talaq,e-biddat' though
bad in theology, was considered as "good" in law. All learned counsel G
representing the petitioners were also unequivocal, that 'talaq-e-biddat'
was accepted as a "valid" practice in law. That being so, it is not possible
forus to hold, the practiceto be invalid in law, merely at the asking of the
petitioners, just because it is considered bad in theology.
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A III. ls the practice of 'talag-e-bidd~t', a1wrovedidisapproved by·
"hadiths"?
128. At the beginning of our consideration, we have arrived at
the conclusion, that thejudginent rendered by the Privy Council in the
Rashid Ahmad case 1, needs a reconsideration, in view of the
B pronouncements of various High Courts including a Single Judge of the
Gauhati High Court in the Jiauddin Ahmed case1, a Division Bench of
the same High Court - the Gauhati High Court in the Rukia Khatun
case\ by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the Masroor Ahmed
case4, and finally, on account of the decision of a Single Judge of the
Kerala High Court in the Nazeer case 5•
c
129. Even though inconsequential, and the same can never-never
be treated as a relevant consideration, it needs to be highlighted, that
each one of the Judges who authored the judgments rendered by the
High Courts referred to .above,. professed the Muslim religfon. They
were Sunni Muslims, belonging to the Hanafi school. The understanding
D by them, of their religion, cannot therefore be considered as an outsider's
view. In the four judgments referred to above, the High Courts relied on
'hadiths' to support and supplement the eventual conclusion drawn. There
is certainly no room for any doubt, that if 'hadiths' relied upon by the
High Courts in their respective judgments, validly affirmed the position
E expressed with reference to 'talaq-e-biddat", there would be no occasion
forus to record a view to the contrary. 1t is in the aforestated background,
that we proceed to examine the 'hadiths '. relied upon by learned cotmsel
appearing for the rival parties, to. support their individual, ..claims.
,.

130. A number ofleai:'ned eounsel who had .aj:>f'.leared in supportn ·.
F of the petitioners' 'claim; that 'the·practice 'Of :taliiq~e·biddaf was un, _
Islamic, and that thi~ Cdurf:needed to pronoun:ciitas such; illvited o.~r ·· ··
attention to a'sei:'Of 'hadiths' ,'to'slibsfatlliate theirposition .. The assertions ·.
made on l:>ehalfoftbe petitfoners wete opposed; by·p1acii1greliance on a;..•.
different setof'hadiths'. Based thereon, wewi'if ~ndeavour to record. a·.
firm conclusion, whether 'talaq·-e-biddat', was or was not, recognized
G and supported by 'hadiths'.
131. First of all, we may refer fo th~ submissions adva~ced by·
Mr. Amit Singh Chadha, Senior Advocate, who had painstakingly referred ·
to the 'hadiHis; in the. foµr_judgment~ of.th~ l:lighCourts {'-fo{~etaiis; ·
refer t.o Part-6 .:_:Judicial pr{mouncements, on the subject of "tafaq-e-· ·
H biddat'). Insofar as .th~ Jiat1ddin Ahmed case1 is concerned, details of
•.

····. "·
"
··,1 '.

. SHAYARA SANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1009
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

-_ the entire consideration have been narrated in paragraph 31 hereinabove. A
Likewise, the consideration with reference to the Rukia Khanm case 3
has been recorded in paragraph 32. The judgment in the Masroor Ahmed
case4 has been dealt with in paragraph 33. And finally, the Nazcer
case' has been deciphered, by incorporating the challenge, the
consideration and the conclusion in paragraph 34 hereina:lfove. For B
-reasons of brevity, it is not necessary to record all the above 'hadiths'
for the second time. Referefence may theref()re be made to the
paragtaphs referred to above, as the first basis expressed ori behalf of
· the petitioners, to lay the foundation of their claim, that the practice, of .
'talaq-e-biddat' cannotbe accepted as a matter of 'personal law' amongst
Muslims, including Sunni Muslims belonging to the Hanafi school. In C
fact, learned senior counsel, asserted,·.that the p·osition expressed by the
· High Courts, had been approved by this Court in the ShamimAra case 12 •
132. Mr. Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, reiterated and
·reaffirmed the position expressed in the fourjudgments (two of the Gauhati
High tourt, one of the .Delhi High Court, and the last one of the Kerala D
lligh Court) to emphasize his submissions, as a complete justification for .
accepting the claims of the petitioners: Interestingly, learned senior -
I
counsel made a frontal attack to the 'hadiths' relied upon by the AIMPLB.
J ·To repudiate the veracity of the 'hadiths' relied upon by the respondents,
it was pointed out, that it was by n~w settled, that there were various'
degrees of reliability and/or authenticity of different 'hadiths'. Referring E
to the Principles of Mohomedan Law by Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla
(LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 20 11i edition), it was
asserted, that the 'hadiths' n;lied upon by the AIMPLB (to which a
reference. will be made separately); were far - far removed from the
time of the Prophet Mohammad. It was explained, .that 'hadiths' recorded F
later in point of time, were less credible and authentic, as with the passage
of time, distortions were likely to set in, making them unreliable. It was
_ - asserted, that 'hadiths' relied upon in the four judgments rendered by t\1e
High Courts, were the tmly reliable 'hadiths ', as they did not suffer from
the infirmity expressed above. In addition to the above, learned senior
counsel drew our attention, to Sunan Bayhaqi 7/54 7 referred to on behalf G
of the AIMPLB, so as to point out, that the same was far removed from
the time of Prophet Mohammad. As against the above, it was submitted,
that the 'hadiths' ofBhukahri (published by Darussalam, Saudi Arabia),
also relied upon by the AIMPLB, were obvious examples of a clear
distortion. Moreover, it was submitted, that the 'hadiths', relied upon by H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. .

A the AIMPLB were not found in the Al Bukhari Hadiths. It was therefore
submitted, that reliance on the 'hadiths' other than those noticed in the
individual judgments referred to hereinabove, would be unsafe (-for
details, refer ~o paragraph 42).
133. Learned senior counsel also asserted, that as a historical
r~ B . fact Shia Muslims believe, that during the Prophet's time, and that of the
First Caliph-Abu Baqhr, and the Second Caliph- Umar, pronouncements
oftalaq by three consecutive utterances were treated as one. (Reference
in this behalf was made to "Sahib Muslim" compiled by Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin
Abdul-AzimAl-Mundhiri, and published by Darussalam). Learned senior
counsel also placed reliance on "The lawful and the prohib.ited in Islam"
C by Al-Halal Wal HaramFil Islam (e<:iition -August 2009). It was pointed
out, that the instant transcript was of Egyptian origin, and further
emphasized, that the same therefore needed to be accepted as genuine
and applicable to the dispute, because Egypt was primarily dominated
by Sunni Muslims belonging to the Hanafi school. In the above publication,
D it was submitted, that the practice of instant triple talaq was described
as sinful. Reference was then made to "Woman in Islamic Shariah" by
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (published by Goodword Books, reprinted in
2014), wherein, irrespective of the number of times the word 'talaq'
was pronounced (if pronounced at the same time, and on the same
occasion), was treated as a singular pronouncement oftalaq, in terms of
E the 'hadith' oflmamAbu Dawud in Fath al-bari 9/27. It was submitted,
that the aforesaid 'hadith' had rightfully been taken into consideration by
the Delhi High Court in the Masroor Ahmed case4 • In addition to the
above, reference was made to "Marriage and family life in Islam" by
Prof. (Dr.) A. Rahman (Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi,
F 2013 edition), wherein by placing reliance on a Hanafi Muslim scholar, it
was opined that triple talaq was not in consonance with the verses of the
Quran. Reliance was also placed on "Imam Abu Hanifa - Life and
Work" by Allamah Shiblinu'mani's ofAzan1garh, who founded the Shibli
College in the 19'h century. Relying upon a prominent Hanafi Muslim
scholar, it was affirmed, that Abu Hanifa himself had declared, that it
G was forbidden to give three divorces at the same time, and whoever did
so was a sinner (-for details, refer to paragraph 42). Based on the
aforestat~d text available in the form of 'hadiths', it was submitted, that
the position adopted by the AIMPLB in its pleadings, was clearly
unacceptable, and need to be rejected. And that, the coclusions drawn
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1011
[JAGDISI:I SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

by the four High Courts referred to above, need ·to be declared as a valid . A
detennination on the subject of 'talaq-e-biddat', in exercise of this Court's
power under Article 141 of the Constitution.
. ' . .
)34. Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the AIMPLB,
contested the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Jn the
first instance, learned senior counsel placed reliance on verses from the B
Quran. Reference was made to Quran, Al-Hashr 59:71; Quran, Al-
Anfal· 8:20; Quran,Al-Nisa4:64; Quran,Al-Anfal 8: 13; Quran,Al-Ahzab
33:36; and Quran, Al-Nisa 4: 11~ (-for details, refer to paragraph 86
above). Pointedly on the subject of triple talaq, and in order to demonstrate,
that the same is not in consonance with the Quranic verses, the Court's
attention was drawn to Quran, Al-Baqarah 2:229; Quran, Al-Baqarah C
2:229 and230; Quran,Al-Baqarah2:232; and Quran,Al-Talaq 65: 1 (-for
details, refer to paragraph 86 above). Besides the aforesaid, learned
senior counsel invited this Court's attention to the statements attributed
to the Prophet Mohanu:llad, with reference to talaq. On this account,
the Court's attention was drawri to Daraqutni, Kitab Al-Talaq wa Al- D
Khula wa Al-Aiyla, 5/23, Hadith number: 3992; Daraqutni, 5/81; Kitab
al-Talaq waAl-Khulawa al-Aiyala, Hadith number: 4020; Surran Bayhaqi,
-~ 7/547, Hadith number: 14955; Al-SunanAI-Kubra Iii Bayhaqi, Hadith
number: 14492; and Sa:hi al-Bukhari Ki tab al-Talaq, Hadith number: 5259
(-for details, refer to paragraph 86 above). Representing the AIMPLB,
E
learned senior counsel, also highlighted 'hadiths' on the subject of' talaq'

-
and drew our attention to Surran Abu Dawud, Bad Karahiya al-Talaq,
,, Hadith no: 2178; Musannaf ibnAbi Shaybah, Bab mankara an yatliq al
raj al imratahuu thalatha fi maqad wahadi wa ajaza dhalika alayhi, Hadith
· number: 18089; (Musannaf ibnAbi Shayba, Kitab al-Talaq, bab fi al raj al
yatlaqu imratahuu miata aw alfa, Hadith number: 18098; Musannaf F
Abd al-Razzaq, Kitab al-talaq, Hadith number 11340; Musannafibn Abi
Shayba, Ki tab al-Talaq, Hadith no: 18091; Musannaf lbn Abi Shayba,
Hadith no: 18087; Al-Muhadhdhab, 4/305; and Bukhari, 3/402 (~for details,
refer to paragraph 87 above) .
. 135. Having dealt with the position expounded in· the Quran and G
'hadiths' as has been noticed above, learned senior counsel attempted to
repudiate the veracity of the 'hadiths' relied upon, in all the four judgments
rendered by the High Courts. In this behalf learned senior counsel
provided the following complilation for this Court's con~deration:
', .. H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 1. The JiauddinAhmed case2
SI. Reference ·Comments
No.
(i) Maulana Mohammad He is a Qadiyani. Mirza ....
. Ali (r~ferred to at Ghulam Ahmed (founder
B paras 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Qadian( School)
of the judgment) declared himself to be the
Prophet after Prophet
Mohammed and it is for
this reason that all
Muslims do not consider
c the Qadiyani sect to be a
part of the Islamic
communitv.
2. The Ruk1a Khatun case 3
SI. Reference Comments
D No. "

(i) Authorities in this judgment
are identical to the above
mentioned judgment of
Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara
Begum.
E
3. The Masroor Ahmed case 4
SI. Reference Comments
No.
(i) Mulla (Referred at Approves the proposition that
the . footnote at triple talaq is sinful, yet
F
page 153 of the effective as an irrevocable
iudgment) divorce.
4. The Nazeer case~.

SL Reference Comments
G No.
(i) Basheer Ahmad He wrote a commentary on
Mohyidin (Referred the Quran entitled as Quran:
at paras 1 and 6 of The Living Truth, however
the judgment) the ee:tract relied upon in the
decision does not discuss
triole talaa.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 1013
. ·. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(ii) !bn Kathir (Referred He wrote a commentary on A
in paras l and 8 of the Quran entitled as Tafsir
the judgment) Ibn Kathir. He takes the
view, that three
pronouncements at the same
time were unlawful. lt is
submitted that he belonged to B
the Ahl-e-Hadith/Salafi
school, which school does not
recognize triple talaq.
(iii) Dr. Tahir Mahmood He was a Professor of Law,
- (Referred in para 6 of Delhi University.
the judgment) He wrote a book entitled c
"Muslim Law in India and
Abroad" and other books.
Referred to other Islamic
scholars to state, that it is a
misconception that three
talaqs have to be pronounced ·D
in three consecutive months,
it is not a general rule as the
three pronouncements have to
be made when the wife is not
in her menses, which would
obviously require about three E
months.
It is submitted, that the said
extract is irrelevant and out of
context as it does not
specifically deal with validity
of triple talaci.
F
(iv) Sheikh Yusuf Al- He regarded triple talaq as
Qaradawi (Referred against God's law: It 1s
in para 8 of the submitted that he was a
judgment) follower of the Ahl-e-Hadith
School..·
(v) Mahmoud Rida He authored the book entitled
Murad (Referred in as Islamic Digest of Aqeedah
G
para 8 of the and Fiqh. He took the view
judgment) · that triple talaq does not
conform to the teachings of
the Prophet. He is a follower
of the AhI-e-Hadith school.
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A
(vi) Sayyid Abdul Ala He is a scholar of the Hanafi
Maududi (Referred School. Though the passages
m para 11 of the extracted m the judgment
judgment) indicate that he was of the
view that three
B pronouncements can be
treated as one depending on
the intention. However,
subsequently he has changed
his own view and has opined
that triple talaq is final and
c irrevocable.

(vii) Dr. Abu Arneenah He authored the book
Bilal Philips
'EvolutiotfofFiqh'. He states
(Referred in para 19that Caliph Umar introduced
D of the judgment) triple talaq in order to
discourage abuse of divorce.
He is a follower of the Ahl-e
Hadith school.
(viii) Mohammed Hashim He was of the view that
Kamali (Referred in Caliph Umar introduced triple
E para 23 of the talaq in order to discourage
judgment) abuse of divorce. He is a
professor of law.

It was the submitted on behalf of the AIMPLB, that the views of persons
who are not Sunnis, and those who did not belong to the Hanafi school,
F could not have been validly relied upon. It was submitted, that reliance
on Maulana Muhammad Ali was improper because he was a Qadiyani,
and that Muslims do not consider the Qadiyani sect to be a part of the
Islamic community. Likewise, it was submitted, that reference to
Basheer Ahmad Mohyidin was misplaced, as the commentary authored
G by him, did not deal with the concept of 'talaq-e-biddat'. Reference to
Tafsir Ibn Kathir was stated to be improper, as he belonged to the Ahl- r
e-Hadith/Salafi school, which school does not accept triple talaq. It was
submitted, that Dr. Tahir Mahmood was a Professor of Law at the Delhi
University, and his views must be treated as personal to him, and could
not be elevated to the position of 'hadiths'. 1t was pointed oUt, that
H
SHAYARA BANO v. 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1015
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Sheikh Yusuf al"Qaradawi, was a follower of Ahl-e•Hadith school, and . A
therefore, his views could not be taken into consideration. So also, it
· was submitted, that Mahmoud Rida Murad was a follower ·of Ahl:..e- ·
Hadith/Salafi school. Reference to Sa)ryid Abdul Ala Maududi, it was·
pointed out, was improperly relied upon, because the view expressed by
the above scholar was that "three pronouncements of talaq could be B
treated as one, depending on the 'intention' of the husband". This p.osition,
according to learned senior counsel, does not support the position
propounded on behalf of the petitioners, because ifthe 'intention' was to
make three pronouncements, it would constitute ayalid 'talaq'. With
reference to Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, it was submitted, that he
was also a follower of the Ahl-e-Hadith/Salafi school. Last of all, with C
reference to Mohammed Hashim Kamali, it was pointed out, that he
was merely a Professor of Law, and the views expressed by him should
be considered as his personal views. It was accofdingly asserted, that
supplanting the views of other schools ofSunniMusliJl1S, with reference
to the practice of 'talaq-e-biddaf by the proponents of the Hanafi school, D
and even with the .
beliefs of Shia
0 .
Muslims,
.
was a dear breach. of a ·
rightful utJ.derstanding of the school, and the practice in question.
136. Based on the· submissions advanced on behalf of the
AIMPLB, as have been noticed hereinabove, it. was sought to be
emphasized, that such complicated issues relating to norms applicable to
a religious sect, could only be determined by the community itself. E
Learned counsel cautioned, this Court from entering into the thicket of
the instant determination, as this Court did not have the expertise to deal
with.the issue. o .

137. Having given our thoughtful consideration, and having
examined the rival 'hadiths' relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, F
we have no other option, but to accept the contention oflearned senior .
counsel appearing on behalf of the AIMPLB, and to accept his counsel,
not to enter into the thicket of determining (on the basis of the 'hadiths'
relied upon) whether or not 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq, .constituted a
valid practice under the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. In fact, even G
Mr. Salman Khurshid appearing on behalf of the petitioners (seeking tbe.
repudiation of the practice of the 'talaq-e-biddat') had pointed out, that it
was not the role of a court to interprete nuances of Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat'. It was pointed out, thar'under the Muslim 'personal
law', the religious head~ the Imam would be called upon to decipher the
H·
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A teachings expressed in the Quran and the 'hadiths ',in order to resolve a
conflict between the parties. It was submitted, that the Imam alone, had
the authority to resolve a religious conflict, amongst Muslims. It was
submitted, that the Imam would do so, not on the basis of his own views,
but by relying on the verses from the Quran, and the 'hadiths', and
B based on other jurisprudential tools available, and thereupon he would
render the correct interpretation. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior
Advocate also cautioned this Court, that it was not its role to determine
the true intricacies of faith.
138. All the submissions noted above, at the behest of the learned
counsel representing the AIMPLB would be inconsequential, if the
C judgment rendered by this Court in the Shamim Ara case 12 , can be
accepted as declaring the legal position in respect of 'talaq-e-biddat'.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the above
judgment, it needs to be recorded, that this Court in the Shamim Ara
case 11 did not debate the issue of validity of 'talaq-e-biddat'. No
D submissions have been noticed for or against, the proposition.
Observations recorded on the subject, cannot therefore be treated as
ratio decendi in the matter. In fact, the question of validity of talaq-e-
biddat' has never been debated before this Court. This is the first
occasion that the matter is being considered after rival submissions have
been advanced. Moreover, in the above judgment the Court was
E adjudicating a dispute regarding maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband, in order to avoid the liability
of maintenance pleaded that he had divorced his wife. This Court in the
above judgment decided the factual issue as under:
"15. The plea taken by Respondent 2 husband in his written
F statement may be renoticed. Respondent 2 vaguely makes certain
generalized accusations against the appellant wife and states
that ever since the marriage he found his wife to be sharp, shrewd
and mischievous. Accusing the wife of having brought disgrace
to the family, Respondent 2. proceeds to state, vide para 12
G (translated into English)- "The answering respondent, feeling
fed up with all such activities unbecoming of the. petitioner wife,
has divorced her on 11-7-1987." The particulars of the alleged
talaq are not pleaded nor the circumstances under which and
the persons, if any, in whose presence talaq was pronounced
have been stated. Such deficiency continued to prevail even
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJT]

during the trial and Respondent 2, except examining himself, A
adduced no evidence in proof oftalaq said to have been given by
him on 11-7-1987. There are no reasons substantiated in
justification of talaq and no plea or proof that any effort at
reconciliation preceded the talaq.
16. We are also of the opinion that the talaq to be effective has B
to be pronounced. The term "pronounce" means to proclaim, to
utter formally, to utter rhetorically, to declare, to utter, to articulate
(see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition, p. I 030).
There is no proofof talaq having taken place on 11-7-1987. What
the High Court has upheld as talaq is the plea taken in the written C
statement and its communication to the wife by delivering a copy
of the wrfrten statement on 5-12-1990. We are very clear in our
mind that a mere plea taken in the written statement of a divorce
having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be
treated as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy
of the written statement to the wife. Respondent 2 ought to have D
adduced evidence and proved the pronouncement of talaq on
11-7-1987 and ifhe failed'in proving the plea raised in the written
statement, the plea ought to have been treated as failed. We do
not agree with the view propounded in the decided cases referred
to by Mulla and Dr Tahir Mahmood in their respective
E
commentaries, wherein a mere plea of previous talaq taken in
the written statement, though unsubstantiated, has been accepted
as proof oftalaq bringing to an end the marital relationship with
effect from the date of filing of the written statement. A plea of
previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be
treated as pronouncement of talaq by the husband on the wife F
on the date of filing of the written statement in the Court followed
· by delivery of a copy thereof to the wife. So also the affidavit
dated 31-8-1988, filed in some previous judicial proceedings not
inter partes, containing a self-serving statement of Respondent
2, could not have been read in evidenc<; as relevant and of any
value. G
17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Neither the
marriage between the parties stands dissolved on 5-12-1990 nor
does the liability of Respondent 2 to pay maintenance comes to
an end on that day. Respondent 2 shall continue to remain liable
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . · [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A for payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end
in accordance with law. The costs in this appeal shall be borne
by Respondent 2."
The liability to pay maintenance was accepted, not because 'talaq·e-
biddat' - triple talaq was not valid in law, but because the husband had
B not been able to establish the factum of divorce. It is therefore not
possible to accept the submission made by learned counsel on the strength
of the ShamimAra case 12 •
139. Having given our thoughtful consideration on the entirety of
the issue, we are persuaded to accept the counsel of Mr. Kapil Sibal and
· c Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocates. It would be appropriate for
us, to refrain from entertaining a determination on the issue in hand,
irrespective of the opinion expressed in the four judgments reliedupon
by learned counsel for the petitioners, and the Qur;mic verses and
'ha:diths' relied upon by the rival parties. We truly do not find ourselves,
upto the task. We have chosen this course, because we are satisfied,
D that the controversy can be finally adjudicated, even in ihe absence of
an answer to the proposition posed in the instant part of the consideration.
IV. Is the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat', a matter of faith for Muslims? If
yes, whether it is a constituent of their 'personal law'?
E 140. In the two preceding parts of our consideration, we have not
been able to persuade ourselves to disapprove and derecognize the
practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'. It may however still be possible for us, to
accept the petitioners' prayer, if it can be concluded, that 'talaq-e-biddat'
was not a constituent of'personal law' of Sunni Muslims belonging to
the Hanafi school. And may be, it was merely a usage or custom. We
F would, now attempt to determine an answer to the above noted poser.
141. As a historical fact, 'talaq-e-biddat' is known to have crept
into Muslim tradition more than 1400 years ago, at the instance of
Umayya9 monarchs. It can certainly be traced to the period of Caliph
Umar - a senior companion of Prophet Muhammad. Caliph Umar
G succeeded Abu Bakr (632-634) as the second Caliph on 23.8.634. If
this position is correct, then the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' can most
certainly be stated to have originated some 1400 years ago. Factually,
Mr. Kapil Sibal had repeatedly emphasized the above factual aspects,
and the same were not repudiated by any oflearned counsel (-and private
H individuals) representing the petitioner's cause.
.SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1019
[JAGDISI:I SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

142, The fact, that the practice of'talaq-e-biddat' was widespread A
can also not be disputed. In Part-5 of the instant judgment-Abrogation
of the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' by legislation, the world over, in Islamic,
as well as, non-Islamic States, we have dealt with legislations at the
hands of Arab States - Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Libiya, Mrocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunesia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen; B
we have also dealt with. legislations by South-east Asian States -
· Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines; we have additiop.ally dealt with
legislations by sub-continental States - Pakistan and Bangladesh. All
these countries have legislated with reference to - 'talaq-e-biddat', in
one form or the other. What can certainly be drawn from all these
. legislations is, that 'talaq-e-biddaf' was a prevalent practice amongst c
Muslims, in these countries. Had it not been so, legislation would not
have been required on the subject. It is therefore clear that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' was not lih1ited to certain areas, but was widespread.
143. We have also extracted in the submissions advanced by
learned counsel representing the rival parties, 'hadiths' relied upon by D
·.them, to substantiate their rival contentions. The debate and discussion
amongst Islamic jurists in the relevant 'hadiths' reveal; that the practice
of triple talaq was certainly, in vogue amongst Muslims, whether it was
considered and treated as irregular or sinful, is quite another matter. All
were agreed, that though considered as improper and sacrilegious, it
was indeed accepted as lawful. This debate and discussion in the Muslim E
COII1J!1urtity- as lias been presently demonstrated by the disputants during
the course of hearing, and as has been highlighted through articles which
appeared in the media (at least during the course of hearing), presumably ·
by knowledgeable individuals, reveal views about itS sustenance. The
· only debate in these articles was about the consistence or otherwise, of F
the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' - with Islamic values. Not that, the
practice was not prevalent. The ongoing discussion and dialogue, clearly
reveal, if nothing else, that the practice is still widely prevalent and in
vogue.
144. The fact, that about 90% of the Sunnis in India, belong to the G
Hanafi school, and that, they have been adopting 'talaq-e-biddat' as a
valid form of divorce, is also not a matter of dispute. The very fact, that
the issue is being forcefully canvassed,.before the highest Court of the
land, and at that - before a Constitution Bench, is proof enough. The
fact that the judgment of the Privy Council in the Rashid Ahmad case 1
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A as far back as in 1932, upheld the severance of the matrimonial tie,
based on the fact that 'talaq' had been uttered thrice by the husband,
demonstrates not only its reality, but its enforcement, for the determination
of the civil rights of the parties. It is therefore clear, that amongst Sunni
Muslims belonging to the Hanafi school, the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat',
B has been very much prevalent, since time immemorial. It has been
widespread amongst Muslims in countries with Muslim popularity. Even
though it is considered as irreligious within the religious denomination in
which the practice is prevalent, yet the denomination considers it valid in
law. Those following this practice have concededly allowed their civil
rights to be settled thereon. 'Talaq-e-biddat' is practiced in India by
C 90% of the Muslims (who belong to the Hanafi school). The Muslim
population in India is over 13% (-about sixteen crores) out of which 4-5
crores are Shias, and the remaining are Sunnis (besides, about 10 lakhs
Ahmadias) - mostly belonging to the Hanafi school. And therefore, it
would not be incorrect to conclude, that an overwhelming majority of
Muslims in India, have had recourse to the severance of their matrimonial
D
ties, by way of 'talaq-e-biddat' - as a matter of their religious belief- as
a matter of their faith.
145. We are satisfied, that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' has to
be considered integral to the religious denomination in question - Sunnis
belonging to the Hanafi school. There is not the slightest reason for us
E to record otherwise. We are of the view, that the practice of' talaq-e-
biddat', has had the sanction and approval of the religious denomination
which practiced it, and as such, there can be no doubt that the practice,
is a part of their 'personal law'.
V. Did the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act. 193 7 confer
F statutory status to the subjects regulated by the said legislation?
146. 'Personal law' has a constitutional protection. This protection
is extended to 'personal law' through Article 25 of the Constitution. It·
needs to be kept in mind, that the stature of 'personal law' is that of a
fundamental right. The elevation of 'personal law' to this stature came
G about when the Constitution came into force. This was because Article
25 was included in Part III of the Constitution. Stated differently, 'personal
law' of every religious denomination, is protected from invasion and
breach, except as provided by and under Article 25.
147. The contention now being dealt with, was raised with the
H object of demonstrating, that after the enactment of the Muslim Personal
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS · 1021
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI)

Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the questions and subjects covered A
by the Shariat Act, ceased to be 'personal law', and got transfonned
into 'statutory law'. lt is in.this context, that it was submitted, by Ms.
Indira·Jaising, learned senior counsel and some others, that the tag of
'personal law' got removed from the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat',
afterthe enactment of the Shariat Act, at least for the questions/subjects B
with reference Jo which the legislation was enacted. Insofar as the
present controversy is concerned, suffice it to notice, that the enactment
included " ... dissolution of marriage, including talaq ... ~· amongst the
questions/subjects covered by the Shariat Act. And obviously, when the
parties are Muslims, 'talaq' includes 'talaq-e-biddat'. The pointed
contention must be understood to mean, that after the enactment of the C
Shariat Act, dissolution of marriage amongst Muslims including 'talaq'
(and, 'talaq-e-biddat') had to be considered as regulated through a State
legislation.
148. Having become a part of a State enactment, before· the
Constitution oflndia came into force, it was the submission of learned D
senior counsel, that all laws in force immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution, would continue to be in force even
afterwards. For the instant assertion, reliance was placed on Article
372 of the Constitution. We may only state at this juncture, if the first
proposition urged by the learned senior counsel is correct (that dissolution
of marriage amongst Muslims including 'talaq' was regulated statutorily E
after the 1937 Act), then the latter part of the submission advanced, has
undoubtedly to be accepted as accurate.
149. We have already enumerated the relevant provisions of the
Shariat Act (-for details, refer to Part-4- Legislation in India, in the field
of Muslim 'personal law'). A perusal of Section 2 thereof (extracted in F
paragraph 23 above) reveals, that on the questions/subjects of intestate
succession, special property of females, including personal property
inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of
'personal law', marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar,
lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts G
and trust properties, and wakfs, " ... the rule of decision ... ", where the
parties are Muslims, shall be " ... the Muslim Personal Law - Shariat.
The submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioners, in
support of the instant contention was, that since the ·~rule of the decision"
inter alia with reference to 'talaq' (-'talaq-e-biddat'), was thereafter to
H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A be regulated in terms of the Shariat Act, what was 'personal law' (-prior
to the above enactment), came to be transformed into 'statutory law',
. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, has a significant
bearing, inasmuch as, what was considered as 'personal law' prior to
the Shariat Act, became an Act of the State. Having become an Act of
B the State, it was submitted, that it has to satisfy the requirements of Part
III- Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution. This, it was pointed out, is
indeed the express mandate ofArticle 13(1), which provides that laws in
force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, insofar
as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution;
· shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be considered as void.
c 150. In order to support the issue being canvassed, it was submitted,
that no "rule of decision" can be violative of Part llI of the Constitution.
And "rule of decision" on questions/subjects covered by the Shariat Act,
would be deemed to be matters of State determination. Learned senior
counsel was however candid, in fairly acknowledging, that 'personal
D laws' which pertained to disputes between the family and private
individuals (where the State had no role), cannot be subject to a challenge
on the ground, that they are violative of the fundamental rights contained
in Part Ill of the Constitution. The simple logic canvassed by learned
counsel was, that all questions pertaining to differ".nt 'personal laws' .
amongst Muslims having been converted into "rule of decision" could no
E longer be treated as private matters between the parties, nor would they
be treated as matters of 'personal law". In addition, the logic adopted
to canvass the above position was, that if it did not alter the earlier
position, what was the purpose of bringing in the legislation (the Shariat
Act).·
F 151. On the assumption, that 'personal law' stood transformeli
fato 'statutory law', learned senior counsel for the petitioners assailed
the constitutional validity of'talaq-e-biddat', on the touchstone ofArticles
14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
152. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appe.aring for the
G AIMPLB, drew our attention to the debates in the Le.gislative Assembly,
whereupdri, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
was enacted {for details; refer to paragraph 94). Having invited our
attention to the above debates and more particularly to the statements of
Abdul Qaiyum (representing North-West Frontier Province), it was
H contended, that the legislation under reference, was not enacted with
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION .OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1023
_[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CH]

the object of giving a statutory status to the Muslim 'personal law' - A
'Shariat' .. It was asserted, that the object was merely to negate the
effect of usages and customs. It was pointed out, that' even though .
Muslims were to be regulated under the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', ~
yet customs and usages to the contrary were being given an overriding
effect. To the extent that customs and usages even of local tribes (-as B
also oflocal villages), were being given an overriding position over Muslim
'personal law'' in the course of judicial detennination, even where the '
parties were Muslims. It was therefore asserted, that it would be.wrong
to assume, that the aim and object of the legislators, while enacting the
· Shariat Act, was to give .statutory status to Muslim 'personal law' -
'Shariat'. In other words, it was the contention ofJearned senior counsel, C
· . that the Shariat Act should only be understood as having negated
customary practices and usages, which were in conflict with the existing
Muslim'personal law' - 'Shariat'.
153. Mr. V. Giri; learned senior counsel, supported the above
contention by placing reliance on Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law D
(Shariat) Application Act, 1937, on behalf of the AIMPLB; It was
asserted, that Section 2 has a non obstante clause. It was pointed out,
that aforestated non obstante clause was merely relatable to customs .
and usages: A perusal of Section 2, according to learned senior counsel,
would leave no room for any doubt, that.the customs arid usages referred
to in Section,2 of the Shariat Act, were only such customs and usages as E
were in conflict with the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was
z
accordingly submitted, that the object behind S_ection oft!le Shariat
Act was to declare the.Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', as the "rule of
decisio!l'', in situations where customs and usages were tO the contrary.
' . '

154. Learned senior counsel for the respondents desired us to F
accept their point of view, for.yet another reason. It was submitted, that''
the MuslimPersonal Law (Shaiiat) Application Act, 1937, did not decide
what was, and what was not, Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. It was
therefore p9inted out;-that it would be amisnomer to consider, that the .
Shariat Act, legislated iri the field ofMuslim 'personal faw' - 'Shariat' G .
in any manner on Muslim 'personallaw' ..,. 'Shariat'. It was submitted,
that Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' remained what it was; 1t was
pointed out, that articles of faith as have been expressed on the questions/
subjects regulated by the Shariat Act, have not beeri dealt with in the
Act, they remained the same as were understood by th.e followers of .
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9. S.C.R.

A that faith. It was accordingly contended, that the Muslim 'personal law'
- 'Shariat', was not introduced/enacted through the Shariat Act. It was
also pointed out, that the Shariat Act did not expound or propound the
parameters on different questions or subjects, as were applicable to the
Sunnis and Shias, and their different schools. It was accordingly
B submitted, that it would be a misnomer to interpret the provisions of the
Shariat Act, as having given statutory status to different questions/subjects,
with respect to 'personal law' of Muslims. It was therefore contended,
that the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' was never metamorphosed
into a.statute. It was therefore contended, that it would be wholly improper
to assume that Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' was given statutory
C effect, through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
155. Based on the above contentions; it was submitted, that the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 193 7 cannot be treated
as having conferred statutory status on the Muslim 'personal law' -
'Shariat', and as such, the same cannot be treated as a statutory
D enactment, so as to be tested for its validity in the manner contemplated
under Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
156. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the hands ofleamed counsel for the rival parties.
Having closely examined Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
E Application Act, 1937, we are of the view, that the limited purpose of the
aforesaid provision was to negate the overriding effect of usages aiid
customs over the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. This determination
of ours clearly emerges even from the debates in the Legislative Assembly
before the enactment of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act, 193 7. In fact, the statements of H.M. Abdullilh (representing West
F Central Punjab) and Abdul Qaiyum (representing North-West Frontier
Province), leave no room for any doubt, that the objective sought to be
achieved by the 'Shariat' was inter alia to negate the overriding effect
on customs and usages over the Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. The
debates reveal that customs and usages by tribals were being given
G overriding effect by courts while determining issues between Muslims.
Even usages and customs of particular villages were given overriding
effect over Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat'. We are also satjsfied to ·
accept the contention of the learned senior counsel, that a pemsal of
Section 2 and the non obstante clause used therein, has that effect.
The Shariat Act, in our considered view, neither lays down nor declares
H
•
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1025
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

the Muslim 'persona_l law' - 'Shariat'. Not even, on the questions/subjects A
covered by the legislation. There is no_room for any doubt, that there is
substantial divergence of norms. regulating 'Shias and Sunnis. There
was further divergence ofnorms, in their respective schools. The Shariat
Act did not crystalise the norms as were to be applicable to Shias and
Sunnis, or their respective schools. What was sought to be done through B
the Shariat Act, in our considered view, was to preserve Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat', as it existed from time. immemorial. We are. of the
view, that the Shariat Act recognizes the Muslim 'personal law' as the
'rule of decision' in the same manner as Article 25 recognises the
supremacy and enforceability of 'personal law' of all religions. We are
accordingly satisfied, that Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' as body of C
law, was perpetuated by the Shariat Act, and what had become ambiguous
(due to inundations through customs and usages), was clarified and
crystalised. In contrast, if such a plea had been raised with reference to
the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, which legislatively
postulated the grounds of divorce for Muslim women, the submission
D
would have been acceptable. The 1939 Act would form a part of
'statutory law', and not 'personal law~. We are therefore constrained to
accept the contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondents,
that the proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that
the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 conferred
statutory status, on the questions/subjects governed by the Shariat Act, E
cannot be accepted. That being the position, Muslim 'personal law' -
'Shariat' cannot be considered as a State enactment.
.157. In view of the conclusions recorded in the foregoing
paragraph, it is not possible for us to accept, the contention advanced on
behalfof the petitioners, that the questions/subjects covered by the Muslim F
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 ceased to be 'personal
law' and got transformed into 'statufory law'. Having concluded as
above, we must also hold (-which we do), that the praetices of Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat' cannot be required to satisfy the provisions
contained in Part Ill- Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution, applicable
to State actions, in terms of Article 13 of the Constitution. G
VI. Does 'talag-e-biddat'. violate the parameters expressed in Article
· 25 of the Constitution?
158. In our consideration recorded hereinabcive, we have held,
that the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application · H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Act, 1937 did not alter the 'personal law' status of the Muslim 'personal
law' - 'Shariat'. We shall now deal with the next step. Since 'talaq-e-
biddat' remains a matter of 'personal law', applicable to a Sunni Muslim
belonging to the Hanafi school, can it be declared as not enforceable in
law, as it violates the parameters expressed in Article 25 (which is also
B · one of the pointed contentions of those supporting the petitioners case)?
159. The above proposition is strenuously opposed by all the
learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents, more
particularly, learned senior counsei representing the AIMPLB. During
the. course of the instant opposition, our attention was invited to the
C judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the Narasu Appa Mali
case23 • We may briefly advert thereto. In the said judgment authored
by M.C. Chagla, CJ, in paragraph 13 andGajendragadkar, J. (as he then
was) in paragraph 23, recorded the following observations:
"13. That this distinction is recognised by the Legislature is clear
if one looks to the language ofS, 112. Government oflndiaAct.
D 1915. That section deals with the law to be administered by the·
High Courts and it provides that the High Courts shall, in matters
of inheritance and succession to lands, rents and goods. and in

E
matters of contract and dealing between party and party. when
both parties are subject to the same personal law or custom
having the force oflaw, decide according to that personal law or
custom. arid when the parties are subject to different personal
laws or customs having the force of law. decide according to the
-
law or custom to which the defendant is subject. Therefore. a
clear distinction is drawn between personal law and custom
having the force of law. This is a provision in the Constitution
F Act. and having this model before them the Constituent Assembly
in defining "law" in Art. 13 have expressly and advisedly used
only the expression "custom or usage" and have omitted personal
law. This. in our opinion. is a verv clear pointer to the intention of
the Constitution-making body to exclude personal law from the
G purview of Art. 13. There are other pointers as well. Article 17
abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
Article 25(2)(b) enables the State to make laws for the pumose
of throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Now. if Hindu
personal law became void by reason of Art. 13 and by reason of
H
c
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA ANDOTHERS 1027
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

any of its provisions contravening any fundamental right. then it A
was unnecessary specifically to provide in Art 17 and Art.
25(2)(b) for certain aspects of Hindu personal law which
contravened Arts. 14 and 15. This clearly shows that only in
certain respects has the Constitution dealt with personal law.
The very presence of Art. 44 in the Constitution recognizes the B
existence of separate personal laws. and' Entry No. 5 in the
Concurrent List gives power to the Legislatures to pass laws.
affecting personal law. The scheme of the Constitution, therefore.
seems ·to be to leave personal law unaffected except where
specific provision is made with regard to it and leave it to the
Legislatures in future to modify and improve it and ultimately to C
.put on the statute book a common.and uniform Code. Our attention
· has been drawn to S. 292, Government oflndia Act, 1935, which
provides that all the law in force in British India shall continue in
force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent
· Legislature cir other competent authority, and S. 293 deals with
adaptation of existing penal laws. There is a similar provision iti D
our Constitution in Art. 372(1) and Art. 372(2). It is contended
that the laws which are to continue in force under Art. 3,72(1)
include personal laws, and as these laws are .to .continue in t'orce
subject to the other provisions of the Constittition, it is urged that
by reason of Art. 13( l) any provision in any personal law which E
iS!nconsistent with fundamental rights would be void. But it is
clear from the language ofArts. 372(1) and (2) that the expression
"laws in force" used in this article does not include personal law
because Art. 372(2) entitles. the President to make adaptations
and modifications to the law in force by way of repeal or
F
amendment, and surely it cannot be contended that it was intended
by this provision to authorise the President to make alterations
or adaptations in the personal law of any community. Although
the point urged before us is not by any means free from difficulty,
on the whole after a careful consideration of the various
provisions of the Constitution, we have come to the conclusion G
that personal law is not included in the expression "laws in force"
used in Art. 13(1).
23. .. ... The Constitution of India itselfrecognises the existence
of these personal laws in terms when it deals with the topics
faliing under personal law in item 5 in the Concurrent List-List . H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Jll. This item deals with the topics of marriage and divorce;
infants and minors; adoption; wills. intestacy and succession; joint
family and partition: all matters in respect of which parties in
judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution subject to their personal law. Thus it is
competent either to the State or the Union Legislature to legislate
B
on topics falling within the purview of the personal law and yet
the expression "personal law" is not used in Art. 13. because, in
my opinion, the framers of the Constitution wanted to leave the
personal laws outside the ambit of Pait Ill of the Constitution.
They must have been aware that these personal laws needed to
c be reformed in many material particulars and in fact they wanted
to abolish these different personal laws and to evolve one common
code. Yet they did not wish that the provisions of the personal
laws should be challenged by reason of the fundamental rights
guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution and so they did not
intend to include these personal laws within the definition of the
D
expression "laws in force." Therefore, I agree with the learned
Chief Justice in holding that the personal laws do not fall within
Art. 13(1) at all."
160. It seems to us, that the position expressed by the Bombay
High Court, as has been extracted above, deserves to be considered as
E the presently declared position of law, more particularly, because it was
conceded on behalf of the learned Attorney General for India, that the
judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the Narasu Appa Mali
case2 3 , has been upheld by the Court in the Shri Krishna Singh case29
and the Maharshi Avadheshn cases, wherein, this Court had tested the
F 'personal laws' on the touchstone of fundamental rights in the cases of
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum37 (by a 5-Judge Constitution
Bench), Daniel Latifi v. Union of India38 (by a 5-Judge Constitution
Bench), and in the John Vallamattom case9, (by a 3-Judge Division
Bench). An extract of the written submissions placed on the record of
the case, on behalf of the Union of India, has been reproduced verbatim
G in paragraph 71 above.
161. The fair concession made at the hands of the learned
Attorney General, is reason enough for us to accept the proposition, and
"(1985) 2 sec 556
H J8c2001)1sec740
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1029
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI].

the legal position expressed by the Bombay High Court, relevant part A
whereof has been extracted above, De.spite our installt determination, it
is essential for us to notice a few judgments on the issue, which would
put a closure to the matter.
. (i) Reference may first of all be made to the Shti Krishna Singh case29 •
The factual position which arose in the above case, may be noticed as B
under: · ·
'S', a Hindu ascetic, established the Garwaghat Math at Varanasi in·
. I925. The. 'math' (monastery) comprised of Bangla Kuti and other
buildings and lands endowed by his devotees. 'S' belonged to the Sant
Math Sampradaya, which is a religious denomination of the Dasnami C
sect, founded by the 'Sankaracharya' (head of a monastery). During
this lifetime, 'S' initiated 'A' as his 'chela' (disciple) and gave him full
rights of initiation and 'bhesh' (spiiitual authority). After the death of
'S', his 'bhesh' and sanipradaya (succession of master or disciples) gave
'A' the 'chadar mahanti' (cloak of the chief priest) of the 'math' and
made him the 'mahant' (chief priest), according to the wishes of 'S'. D
'A' thereafter initiated the plaintiff, a 'sudra' (lowest caste .of the four .
Hindu castes), as his 'chela' according to the custom and usage of the
sect and after this death, in accordance with his wishes the 'mahants'
and 'sanyasis' (persons leading ii life ofrenunciation) of the 'bhesh' and
'..sampradaya' gave the 'chadar mahanti' to the plaintiff, and installed E
him as the 'mahant' of the 'math' in the place of~ A', by executing a
document to that effect. 'A' during his life time purchased two houses
in the city of Varanasi, from out of the income of the 'math'. When the
plaintiff became the 'mahant', he brought a suit for ejectment of
Respondents 2 to 5 from one of those houses, on the ground that
Respondent 2 after taking the house on rent from 'A'; had unlawfully F
sublet the premises to Respondents 3 to 5. The defendant respondents
inter alia pleaded, that they were in occupation of the house as 'chelas'
of' A', in their own rights, by virtue of a licence gr\lrited to them by •A',
and therefore, on his death his..natural son and disciple, the appellant
became the owner thereof. One of the questions which needed to be G
determined in the above controversy, was formulated as under:
· (1) Whether the plaintiff being a 'sudra' could not be ordained to
a religious order and become a 'sanyasi' or 'yati' and therefore,
installed as 'mahant' according to the tenets of the Sant Mat .
Sampradaya? H

:L
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A In recording its conclusions with reference to Article 25, in the above
disputed issue, this Court held as under:
"17. lt would be convenient, at the outset, to deal with the view
expressed by the High Court that the strict rule enjoined by the
Smriti writers as a result of which Sudras were considered to be
B incapable of entering the order of yati or sanyasi, has ceased to
be valid because of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution. In our opinion, the learned Judge
failed to appreciate that Part l1l of the Constitution does not
touch upon the personal laws of the parties. In applying the
personal laws of the parties, he could not introduce his own
c concepts of modern times but should have enforced the law as
derived from recognised and authoritative sources of Hindu law
i.e. Smritis and commentaries referred to, as interpreted in the
judgments of various High Courts, except, where such law is
altered by any usage or custom or is modified or abrogated by
D statute."
(ii) Reference is also essential to Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar39,
wherein this Court observed a under:
"It is worthwhile to accom1t some legislation on the subject. The
Hindu Succession Act governs and prescribes rules of succession
E applicable to a large majority of Indians being Hindus, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains etc. whereunder since 1956, if not earlier.. the
female heir is put on a par with a male heir. Next in the line of
numbers is the Shariat law, applicable to Muslims. whereunder
the female heir has an unequal share in the inheritance. by and
F large half of what a male gets. Then comes the Indian Succession
Act which applies to Christians and by and large to people not
covered under the aforesaid two laws, conferring in a certain
manner heirship on females as also males. Certain chapters
thereof are not made applicable to certain communities. Sub-
section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act significantly
G provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the
• members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause
(25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, unless otherwise directed
by the Central Government by means, of a notification in th·e
Official Gazette. Section 3(2) further provides that in the Act,
H "(1996) s sec 12s
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1031
. -
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

unless the context otherwise requires, words importing the A
masculine gender shall not qe taken to include females. General .
rule oflegislative practice is that unless there is anything repugnant
' in the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender .
used in statutes are to be taken to include females. Attention be .
drawn to ~ection 13 of the General Clauses Act. But in matters ' B
of succession the general rule of plurality would have to be applied
with circumspection. The afore provision thus appears to have
been inse1ied ex abundanti cautela. Even under Section 3 of the
Indian Succession Act, the State Government is empowered to ..
exempt any race, sect or tripe from the operation of the Act and C .. -,,~;.,_< . -·
the tribes ofMundas; Oraons, Santhals etc, in the State ofBihar, ·.
who are included in our concern, have been so exempted. Thus
neither the Hindu Succession Act, nor even the Shariat law is
applicable to the custom-governed tri bats. And custom, as is well
recognized, varies from people to people and region to region.".
ln the face of these divisions and visible barricades put up by the D
sensitive tribal peopie valuing their own customs, traditions and
usages, judicially enforcing on them the principles of personal
laws applicable to others, on an elitist approach or on equality
principle, by judicial activism. is a difficult and mind-boggling
effort. Brother K. Ramaswamy, J. seems to have taken the view
that Indian legislatures (and Governments too) would not prompt E
themselves to activate in this direction because of political reasons
and in this situation. an activist court. apolitical as it avowedly is, _
could get into action and legislate.broadly on the lines as suggested ·
" by the petitioners intheir written submissions. However laudable.
desirable and attractive the r0sult may seem, it has happily been F
viewed by mu- learned brother that an activist court is not fully
equipped to cope with the details and intricacies of the legislative
subject and can at best advise and focus attention on the State
polity on the problem and shake it from its slumber, goading it to
awaken. march and reach the goal. For. in whatever measure be G
the concern of the court, itcompulsively needs to apply, motion,
described in judicial parlance as self-restraint. We agree therefore
. with brother K. Ramaswamy. J. as sfimmed up by hirii in the
paragraph ending on p.36 {para 46) of his judgment that under
the circumstances it is not desfrable to declare the customs of
. tribal inhabitants as offending Articles .14. 45..,and 21 of the H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

.i
A Constitution and each case must be examined when full facts
are placed before the court.
With regard to the statutory provisions of the Act, he has proposed
to the reading down of Sections 7 and ~ in order to preserve
their constitutionality. This approach is available from p.36 (paras
B 47, 48) onwards of his judgment. The words "male descendant
wherever occurring, would include "female descendants". It is
also proposed that even though the provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1925. in terms would not apply to the Schedule
Tribes, their general principles composing ofjustice, equity and
fair play would apply to them. On this basis it has been proposed
c to take the view that the Scheduled Tribe women would succeed
to the estate. of paternal parent, brother or husband as heirs b~
intestate succession and inherit the property in equal shares with
the male heir with absolute rights as per the prinCiples of the Hindu
Succession Act as also the Indian Succession Act. However.
D much we may like the law to be so we regret our inability to .
subscribe to the means in achieving such objective. If this be the
route of return on the court's entering the thicket. it would follow
a beeline for similar claims in diverse situations, not stopping at
tribal definitions, and a deafening uproar to bring other systems•
of law in line with the line with the systems of law in line with
E the Hindu Succession Act and the Indian Succession· Act as
!}lodels. Rules of succession are, indeed susceptible of providing
differential treatment, not necessarily equal. Non-uniformities
would not in all events violate Article I 4. Judge-made
amendments to provisions, should normally be avoided. We are
F thus constrained to take this view. even though it may appear to
be conservative for adopting a cautious approach, and the one
proposed by our learned brother is, regretfully not acceptable to
us."
(iii) In the Ahmedabad Women Action Group case30, this Court recorded
G the questions arising for consideration in pargraphs 1 to 3, which are
reproduced below:
"All these Writ Petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation. In
W.P. (C) No. 494of1996, the reliefs prayed for are as follows:
(a) to declare Muslim Personal Law which allows polygamy as
H void as offending Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution;
,.
SHAYARA BANO v; UNION OF .INDIA AND OTHERS .1033
[JAGDISH SINGB KHEHAR, CJI]
. - .. . . .
(b) to declare Muslim Personal Law which enables a Muslim A
male to give unilateral Talaq to his wife without her consent and
· without resort to judicial process of courts, as void, offending
Articles 13, 14and15ofthe Constitution; .
(
: (c) to declare t11at the mere fact that a Muslim husband takes
more than one wife is an act of cruelty within the meaning of B
· Clause Vlll (f) Qf Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages ·
Act, 1939;
(d) ·to declare that Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986 is void as infringing Articles 14 and 15;
(e) to further decl~re that the provisions of Sunni and Shia laws c
of inheritance which discriminate against females in their share
as compared to the share of males of the same status, void· as
discriminating against females only on the ground of sex.
2. In writ Petition (C) No: 496of1996, the reliefs prayed for
·· are the following:- .... · . . . . . ·· ·. . D
·. (a) to declare Sections 2(2), 5(ii) and (iii), 6 and Explanation
.tO Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as void offending.·
Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 13 of the ·constitution of
India;
E
· (b) to declare Section (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as void
offendingArticles 14and 15oftheConstitutionoflndia; ·
(c) to declare Sections 3 (2), 6 and 9 of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act read with Section 6 of Guardians and
· · ·wards Act void; · ·
F
(d) to declare the unfettered and absolute discretion allowed to a
Hindu spouie to make testamentacy disposition without providing
. I
\ . for an ascertained. share of his or her spouse and. dependant,
void
3. In writ Petition (C) No. 721of1996, the reliefs.· prayed for G
are the following :
{a) to declare Sections 10 and 34 ofhidian Divorce Act void and
also to declare Sections 43 tq 46 of the Indian Succession Act ·
· void."
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A The position expressed in respect of the above questions, after noticing .
the legal position propounded by this Court in the Madhu Kishwar case39,
was recorded in paragraph 4 as under:
"4. At the outset. we would like to state that these Writ Petitions
do not deserve disposal on merits inasmuch as the arguments
B advanced by the learned Senior Advocate before us wholly involve
issues of State policies with which the Court will not ordinarily
hl\Ve any concern. Further, we find that when similar attempts
were made, of course by others, on earlier occasions this Court
held that the remedy lies somewhere else and not by knocking at
the doors of the courts."
c
(iv) Reference may also be made to the Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin -
Saheb case28 , wherein, this Court held as under:
"The content of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up
for consideration before this Court in the Commissioner, Hindu
D' Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt; Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das v.
The State of Orissa; Sri Ventatamana Devaru v. The State of
Mysore; Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali and
several other cases and the main principles underlying these
provisions have by these decisions been placed beyond
controversy. The first is that the protection of these articles is
not limited to matters of doctrine or belief they extend also to
acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a
guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes
of worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is
F that what constitutes an essential part of a religion or religious
practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the
doctrine of a particular religion and include practices which are
regarded by the community as a part of its religion".
(v) It is also essential to note the N. Adithyan case 33 , wherein this Court
G observed as under:
"9. This Court, in Seshammal v. State ofT.N., (1972) 2 SCC 11
again reviewed the principles underlying the protection engrafted
in Articles 25 and 26 in the context of a challenge made to abolition
of hereditary right of Archaka, and reiterated the position as
hereunder: (SCC p.;21, paras 13-14)
H:
SHAYARA BANO v, UN10N OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1035
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI)

"13. This Court in Sardar Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of A
Bombay AIR 1962 SC 85Jhas sununarized the position in law.
as follows (pp.531 and 532):
''The content of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up
for consideration before this Court in Commr., Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur B
Mutt, Mahant Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa,
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, Durgah Committee,
Ajmer v: Syed Hussain Ali and several other cases and the main
principles underlying these provisions have by these decisions
bee11 placed beyond controversy. The first is that the protection C
of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief
they extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and
therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of
religion. The second is that what constitutes an essential part of
a religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts D
with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include
practices.'which are regarded by the conununity as a part of its
religion.'
. 14. Bearing these principles in mind, we have to approach the
controversy ill the present case." .E
· .16. It is·now well settled that Article 25 secures to every person.
subject of course to public order. health and morality and other
. provisions ofPart Ill, including Article 17 freedom to entertain
and exhibit by outward acts as well as propagate and disseminate
such religious belief according to his judgment and conscience F
for the edification of others. The right of the State to impose
such restrictions as are desired or found necessary on grounds
-0f public order, health and morality is inbuilt in Articles 25 and 26
.,.i itself. Article 25(2)(b) ensures the right of the State to miike a
• law providing for social welfare and reform besides throwing
open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all G~ _____ _
classes and sections of Hindus and any such rights of the Sate
·or of the conuntlnities or classes of society were also considered
to need due regulation in the process of harmonizing the various
rights. The vision of the founding fathers of the Constitution to
liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence to mere H
1036 SUJ1 REME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational basis has
found expression in the fonn of Article 17. The legal position
that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends a guarantee
for rituals and observances. ceremonies and modes of worship
which are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes
an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided
B
by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion
or practices regarded as parts of religion. came to be equally
finnly laid down."
(vi) Relevant to the issue is also the judgment in the Sri Adi Visheshwara
C of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi case3\ wherein it was held:
"28 ..... All secular activities which may be associated with religion
but which do not relate or constitute an essential part of it may
be amenable to State regulations but what constitutes the essential
part of religion may be ascertained primarily from the doctrines
of that religion itself according to its tenets, historical background
D and change in evolved process etc. The concept of essentiality
is not itself a detenninative factor. It is one of the circumstances ·
to be considered in adjudging whether the particular matters of
religion or religious practices or belief are an integral part of the·
religion. It must be decided whether the practices or matters
E are considered integral by the community itself. Though not
conclusive, this is also one of the facets to be noticed. The
practice in question is religious in character and whether it could
be regarded as an integral and essential part of the religion and if
the court finds upon evidence adduced before it that it is an
integral or essential part of the religion, Article 25 accords
F protection to it. ..... "
(vii) The position seems to be clear, ·that the judicial interference with
'person~l law' can be rendered only in such manner as has been provided
for in Article 25 of the Constitution. It is not possible to breach the
parameters of matters of faith, as they have the protective shield of
G Article 25 (except as provided in the provision itself).
162. To be fair to the learned Attorney General, it is necessary to
record, that he contested the determination recorded by the Bombay
High Court in the NarasuAppa Mali case2\ and the judgments rendered
by this Court affirming the same, by assuming the stance that the position
H.
. SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1037
. [JAGDISH SINGH KH~HAR, CH]

needed to be revisited (-for details, refer to paragraph 71 above) .. There A
are two reasons for us not to entertain this plea. Firstly, even according
·.·to the learned Attorney General; the proposition·has been accepted by
this Court in at leas.t two judgments rendered by Constitution Benches
(-of 5-Judge each), and as such, we (-as a 5-Judge Bench) are clearly
disqualified to revisit the proposition. And, secondly, a challenge to B
'personal law' is also competent under Article 25, if the provisions of·
Part III - Fundamental Rights, of the Constitution, are violated, which
· we shall in any case consider (hereinafter) while examining the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Likewise, we shall
not dwell upon the submissions advanced in rebuttal by Mr. Kapil Sibal,
· Senior Advocate. · · C
163. So far as the challenge to the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat',
with reference to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 25 is
concerned, we have also delved into the submissions canvassed, during
the course of hearing. It would be pertinent to mention, that the
constitutional protect\ol). to tenets of 'personal law' cannot be interfered· D
with, as long as the same do not infringe "public order, morality and
health'', and/or"the provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution". This is
the clear position exI>ressed in Article25(1 ).
.. ' ' . .
) 64. We will now venture tO examine the instant cl1allenge with
reference to. the practice of 'talaq.,.e-biddat'. It is not possible for us to E
accept, that the practice of 'talaq-ti-bicldat' can be set aside and held as
·unsustainable in law forthe three defined purposes expressed in Article
25(1 ), namely, for reasons of it being contrary to public order, morality ·
and health. Viewed from any angle, it is impossible to conclude, that the
practice impinges on 'public order', or for that matter on'health'. We
are also satisfied, that ifhas no nexus to 'morality', as well. Therefore;· F
in our considered view, the practice of 'talaq.,.e-biddat' cannot be struck
down on the three non-permissible/prohibited areas which Article 25
'forbids even in respect of 'personal law'. It is therefore not possible for
, us to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners on this
account. · G
165 .. The. only remaining ground on which the challenge to 'talaq- ·
· e-biddat' under Article 25 could be sustainable is, if'talaq-e-biddat' can
·be seen as violative of the provisions of Part III of the Const.itution. The
chalienge raised at the behest of the petitioners, as has been extensively .
noticed during the course of recording the submissions advanced on H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A behalf of the petitioners, was limited to the practice being allegedly
violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21. We shall now examine the veracity
of the instant contention. The fundamental rights enshrined in Articles
14, 15 and 21 are as against State actions. A challenge tmder these
provisions (Articles 14, 15 and 21) can be invoked only against the State.
B It is essential to keep in mind, that Article 14 forbids the State from
acting arbitrarily. Article 14 requires the State to ensure equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws, within the territory of India.
Likewise, Article 15 prohibits the State from taking discriminatory action
on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, or any of
them. The mandate of Article 15 requires, the State to treat everyone
C equally. Even Article 21 is a protection from State action, inasmuch as,
it prohibits the State from depriving anyone of the rights enuring to them,
as a matter of life and liberty (-except, by procedure established by
law). We have already rejected the contention advanced on behalf of
the petitioners, that the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
D Application Act, 1937, did not alter the 'personal law' status of 'Shariat'.
We have not accepted, that after the enactment of the Shariat Act, the
questions/subjects covered by the said legislation ceased to be 'personal
law', and got transformed into 'statutory law'. Since we have held that
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat' is not based on any State Legislative
action, we have therefore held, that Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat',
E cannot be tested on the touchstone of being a State action. Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat', in our view, is a matter of 'personal law' of
Muslims, to be traced from four sources, namely, the Quran, the 'hadith',
· the 'ijma' and the 'qiyas'. None of these can be attributed to any State
action. We have also already concluded, that 'talaq-e-biddat' is a practice
amongst Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school. A practice which· is a
F component of the 'faith' of those belonging to that school. 'Personal
law', being a matter of religious faith, and not being State action, there is
no question of its being violative of the provisions of the Constitution of
India, more particularly, the provisions relied upon by the petitioners, to
assail the practice of'talaq-e-biddat', namely, Articles 14, 15 and 21 of
G the Constitution.
VII. Constitutional morality and 'talag-e-biddat':
.166. One of the issues canvassed on behalf of the petitfoners,
which was spearheaded by the learned Attorney General for India, was
on the ground, that the constitutional validity of the practice of 'talaq-e-
H
•·/.

SHAYAR!\ BANO v. lJNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1039
(JAGDISH ·SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] .
. : '

biddat' - triple talaq, was in breach of constitutional morality. The A·
question raised before us was, whether under a secular Constitution, .
women could be discriminated against, only on account of their religious.
identity? It was asserted, that women belonging to any individual religious ·
· denomination, cannot suffer a significantly inferior status in society, as
compared to women professing some other religion. It. was pointed out,
that Muslim women, were placed in a position far more vulnerable than ~
their counterparts, who professed other faiths .. It was submitted, that
Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain women, were not
subjected to ouster from their matrimonial relationship, without any
reasonable cause, certainly not, at the whim ofthe husband; certainly
·not, without due consideration of the views expressed by the wife, who C ·
. had the right to repel a husband's claim for divorce. it was asserted,
that 'talaq-e-biddat', vests an unqualified right with the husband, to
terminate the matrimonial alliance forthwith, without any reason or
justification. It was submitted, that the process of 'talaq-e~biddat' is
extra-judicial, and as such, there are no remedial measures in place, for D
raising a challenge, to the devastating consequences on the concerned
wife. It was pointed out, that the fundamental right to equality, guaranteed
. to every citizen under Article 14 of the Constitution, must be read to
include, equality amongst women of different religious denominations.
It was submitted, that gender equality, gender equity and gender justice,
were values intrinsically intertwined in the guarantee assured to all (- E.
citizens, and foreigners) under Article 14. It was asserted, that the
conferinent of social status based on patriarchal values, so as to place
womenfolk at the mercy of men, cannot be sustained within the
framework of the fundamental rights, provided for under Part III of the ·
Constitution. It was contended, that besides equality, Articles 14 and 15
prohibit gender discrimination. It was pointed out, that discrimination on F
the ground of sex, was expressly prohibited under Article 15. It was
contended, that the right of a woman to human dignity, social esteem
·and self-worth were vital facets, of the right to life under Article 21. It
· was submitted, that gender justice was a constitutional goal, contemplated
by the framers of the Constitution. Referring to Article 51A(e) of the .G
Constitution, it was pointed out, that one of the declared fundamental
duties contained in Part IV of the Constitution, was to ensure that women
were not subjected to derogatory practices, whiCh impacted their dignity.·
It was pointed out, ~hat gender equality and dignity of women, were non-
I negotiable. It was highlighted, that women constituted half of the nation's
If
!
, I
iI
1Q40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A population, and inequality against women, should necessarily entail an
inference of wholesale gender discrimination.
167. In order to support the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners, as have been noticed hereinabove, reliance was placed
on Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India40 • Our pointed attention was drawn
B to the following observations recorded therein:
"44. Marriage, inheritance, divorce, conversion are as much
religious in nature and content as any other belief or faith. Going
round the fire seven rounds or giving consent before Qazi are as
much matter of faith and conscience as the worship itself When
c .a Hindu becomes a convert by reciting Kalma or a Mulsim
becomes Hindu by reciting certain Mantras it is a matter of belief
and conscience. Some of these practices observed by members
of one religion may appear to be excessive and even violative of
human rights to members of another. But these are matters of
faith. Reason and logic have little role to play. The sentiments
D and emotions have to be cooled and tempered by sincere effort.
But today there is no Raja Ram Mohan Rai who single handedly
brought about that atmosphere which paved the. way for Sati
abolition. Nor is a statesman of the stature of Pt. Nehru who
could pilot through, successfully, the Hindu Succession
E Act and Hindu Marriage Act revolutionising the customary Hindu
Law. The desirability of uniform Code can hardly be doubted.
But it can concretize only when social climate is properly built
up by elite of the society, statesmen amongst leaders who instead a
of gaining personal mileage rise above and awaken the masses
to accept the change."
F
Reliance was also placed on the Valsamma Paul case20 , wherefrom
learned counsel emphasized on the observations recorded in the folloW:ing
paragraphs: ·
"6. The rival ~ontentions. give rise to the question of harmonising
- the conflict between the personal law and the constitutional
animation behind Articles 16(4) and 15(4) of the Constitution.
The concepts of"eguality before law" and "equal protection of
the laws" guaranteed by Article 14 and its species Articles 15(4)
and 16(4) aim at establishing social and economic justice inoolitical
H '"(1995) 3 sec 635
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 1041
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] . - . .r;.;i-..

democracy to all sections of society, to eliminate inequalities in A
.status and to provide facilities and opportunities not only amongst
iridividuals but also amongst groups. of people belonging to
Scheduled Castes (for short 'Dalits'), Scheduled Tribes (for short
·'Tribes') and Other Backward Classes of citizens (for short
'OBCs') to secure adequate means oflivelihood and to promote
with special care the economic and educational interests of the
weaker sections of the people, in particular, Dali ts and Tribes so
as to protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation. By 42llil Constitution (Amendment) Act. secularism
and socialism were brought in the Preamble of the Constitution
to realise that in a democracy unless all sections of society are C
provided facilities and opportunities to participate in political
· ·democracy irrespective of caste, religion. and sex, political
democracy would not last long. Dr Ambedkar in his closing speech
on the draft Constitution stated on 25-11-1949 that "what we
must do is not to.be attained with mere political democracy; we D
must make oui political democracy a social democracy as well.
Political democracy cannot last unless there lies on the base ofjt
a social democracy". · '

.. Social democracy means "a way of life which recognises liberty.
equality and fraternity as principles oflife".They are not separate
items in a trinity but they form union <;>f trinity. To diversity one E
from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the
few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual
initiative, Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become
a natural course of things. Articles 15(4) and 16(4), therefore, F
intend to remove social and economic inequality to make egµal
opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a
right enshrined for the protection of society. The right to social
and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated
iri the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the
Constitution. in particular.Articles 14. 15, 16. 21. 38, 39 and46 of G
the Constitution. is to make the quality of the life of the poor.
.. disadvantaged and disabled citizens of society, meaningful. Equal
protection in Article 14 requires' affirm~tive action for those
unequals by providing facilities and opportunities. While Article .

- H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 15( 1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth, Article 15(4) enjoins upon the State, despite
the above injunction and the one provided in Article 29(2), to
make special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Dali ts and
Tribes. Equally, while Article 16(1) guarantees equality of
B
opportunity for alt citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State, Article 16(4) enjoins
upon the State to make provision for reservation for these sections
which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented
in the services under the State. Article 335 of the Constitution
c mandates that claims of the members of the Dali ts and Tribes
shall be taken into consideration in making appointments to
services and posts in connection with affairs of the Union or of
I a State consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of
administration. Therefore, this Court interpreted that equal
protection guaranteed by Articles 14. 15( l) and 16(1) is required
D
to operate consistently with Articles 15(4). 16(4), 38, 39,46 and
335 of the Constitution, vide per majority. in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India [ 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] known
as Manda! case [ 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]. In other words, equal
protection requires affirmative action for those unequals
E handicapped due to historical facts of untouchability practised
for millennium which is abolished by Article 17; for tribes living
away from our· national mainstream due to social and educational
backwardness of OBCs.
xxx xxx xxx
F 16. The Constitution seeks to establish a secular socialist.
democratic republic in which every citizen has equality of status
and of opportunity. to promote among the people dignity of the
individual. unity and integrity of the nation transcending them
from caste, sectional. religious barriers fostering fraternity among
G them in an integrated Bharat. The emphasis, therefore, is on a
citizen to improve excellence and equal status and dignity of
person. With the advancement ofhuman rights and constitutional
philosophy of social and economic democracy in a democratic
polity to all the citizens on equal footing, secularism has been
held to be one of the basic features of the Constitution (Vide: S.R.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1043
[JAGDISH SINGH l).HEHAR, CJI]

Bommai v. Unionoflndia (1994) 3 SCC 1) and egalitarian social A
} order is its foundation. Unless free mobility of the people is
allowed transcending sectional, caste, religious or regional baniers,
establishment of secular socialist order becomes difficult. Jn State
ofKamataka v. AppaBalu Ingale [1995 Supp (4) SCC 4691 this
Court has held in para 34 that judiciary acts as a bastion of the B
· freedom and of the rights of the people, The Judges are
participants in the living stream of national life. steering the law
between the dangers ofrigidity and formlessness in the seamless
web oflife. A Judge must be a jurist endowed with the legislator's
wisdom. historian's search for truth, prophet's vision. capacity to
respond to the needs of the present. resilience to cope with the C
demands of the future to decide objectively, disengaging himself/
herself from every personal influence or predilections. The Judges
should adapt pumosive intemretation of the dynamic concepts
under the Constitution and the Act with its intemretative armoury
to articulate the felt necessities of the time. Social legislation is D
not a document for fastidious dialects but means of ordering the
life of the people. To construe law one must enter into its spirit,
its setting and history. Law should be capable to expand freedom
of the people and the legal order can weigl\ with utmost equal
care to provide the underpinning of the highly inequitable social
. order. Judicial review must be exercised with insight into social E
values to suwlement the changing social needs. The existing
social inegualities or imbalances are reguired to be removed
readjusting the social order through rule oflaw. In that case, the
need for protection ofright to take water, under the Civil Rights
Protection Act, and the necessity to uphold the constitutional
F
mandate of abolishing untouchability and its practice in any form
was emphasised.
xxi xxx xxx
21. The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles created a secular State based on the G
principle of equality and non~iscrimination, striking a balance
between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment
of the State to establish an egalitarian social order. Dr K.M.
Munshi contended on the floor of the Constituent Assembly that
"we want to divorce religion from personal law, from what may
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A be called social relations, or from the rights of parties as regards
inheritance or succession. What have.these things got to do with
religion, I fail to understand? We are in a stage where we must •
unify and consolidate the nation by eve!}'. means without
interfering with religious practices. If, however, in the past,
religious practices have been so construed as to cover the whole
B
field oflife, we have reached a point when we must put our foot
down and say that these matters are not religion, they are purely
matte~s for secular legislation. Religion must be restricted to
s12heres which legitimately a1mertain to religion, and the rest of
life must be regylated, unified and modified in such a manner
c that we may evolve, as early as 12ossible, a strong and consolidated
nation" [Vide: Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. Vil, pp. 356-
58].
xxx xxx xxx
26. Human rililits are derived from the dignity and worth inherent
D in the human 12erson. Human rights and fundamental freedoms
have been reiterated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Democracy, development and respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and have mutual
reinforcement. The human rights for women, including girl child
E are, therefore, inalienable, integral and an indivisible 12art of
universal human rights. The full development of personalitv and
fundamental freedoms and egual 12artici12ation by women in
. nolitical, social, economic and cultural life are concomitants for
national develonment., social and family stability and growth-
cultural, social and economical. All forms of discrimination on
F grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and
human rights. Convention for Elimination of all forms of
Discrimination Against Women (for short, "CEDAW") was
ratified by the UNO on 18-12-1979 and the Government of India
had ratified as an active participant on 19-6-1993 acceded to
G CEDAW and reiterated that discrimination against women
violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human
dignity and it is an obstacle to the participation on equal terms
with men in the political, social, economic and cultural life of
their country; it hampers the growth of the personality from
society and family, making more difficult for the full development
H
'
SHAYARA BANO v. · UNION. QF JNDIA AND
. .
OTHERS
. [JAGDISH SJNGH KHEHAR; CJl]

· wf potentialities ·of women in· the s.ervice of the respective ·A
,~ countries and of humanity." . .. . . .. . .· . . ..... ..
Reference was also ~ade to the decision of this Court in the
John Vallamattorti case 9, wherefrom learned counsel for the
petitioner highlighted the following observations:
B.
"42. Article 25 merely protects the freedom to practise rituals
, and ceremonies etc. which are only the integral parts of the
religion. Article25 of the ConstitutionMindia will. therefore.not
· have any apolication in the instant case: ·
xxx xxx. xxx
. .
c
44. Before I part with the case. I would like to staieethat Articie
44 provides that the State shall endeavour to s~(;ure for· the .
citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of Jndia.
The aforesaid provision is based on the premise that there is no·
· necessary connect.ion between religious and personal law in a
civilized society. Article 25 of the Constitution confers freedom D
of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion. The aforesaid two provisions viz. Articles 25 and 44
.· show that the former guarantees religious freedom whereas the
latter divests religion from social relations and personal law. It is
no matter of doubt ·that marriage. succession and the like matters E
of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee
enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Any
. legislation which brings succession and the like matters of secular
a
character within the ambit of Articles 25 and 26 is suspect
. legislation. although it.is doubtful whether the American doctrine
of suspect legislation is followed in this country. In Sarla F
. Mudgal v. Union of Jndia (1995) 3 SCC 635 it was held that
marriage, succession and like matters of secular character cannot
be brought within the guar~mtee enshrined under Articles 25 and
.26 of the Constitution. It is a matter ofregret that Article 44 of
the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still G
to step in for framing a common civil code in the countrv. A
common civil code will help the cause of national integration by
removing the contradictions based on ideologies."
Last of all, our attention was drawn to the.Masilamani Mudaliar case 16;
wherefrom reliance was placed on the following:
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A "15. It is seen that ifafter the Constitution came into force, the
right to equality and dignity of person enshrined in the Preamble
of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
which are a trinity intended to remove discrimination or disability
on grounds only of social status or gender, removed the pre-
existing impediments that stood in the way of female or weaker
B
segments of the society. In S.R. Bommai v. Union oflndia (1994)
3 SCC 1 this Court held that the Preamble is part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Handicaps should be removed only
under rule of law to enliven the trinitv of justice, equality and
liberty with dignity of person. The basic structure permeates
c equality of status and opportunity. The personal laws conferring
inferior status on women is anathema to equality. Personal laws
are derived not from the Constitution but from the religious
scriptures. The laws thus derived must be consistent with the
Constitution lest they become void unde~ Article 13 if they violate
fundamental rights. Right to equality is a fundamental right.
D
Parliament, therefore. has enacted Section 14 to remove pre-
existing disabilities fastened on the Hindu female limiting her
right to property without full ownership thereof. The discrimination
is sought to be remedied by Section 14(1) enlarging the scope of
acquisition of the property by a Hindu female appending an
E explanation with it."
168. We have given our thoughtful consid~ration to the
submissions noticed in the foregoing paragraphs. We are of the view,
that in the determination of the matter canvassed, the true purport and
substance of Articles 25 and 44 have to be understood. We shall now
F endeavour to deal with the above provisions.
169. During the course of hearing our attention has been drawn
to the Constituent Assembly deb<:tf", with reference to Article 25 {-draft
Article 19). The debates reveal that the members of the Constituent
Assembly understood a clear distinction between 'personal law' and the
G 'civil code'. 'Personal law' was understood as based on the practices
of members of communities. It was to be limited to the community itself,
and would not affect members of other communities. The 'civil code' on
the other hand, had an unlimited reach. The 'civil code' was understood
to apply to every citizen of the land, to whatever community he may
belong. So far as 'personal law' is concerned, it was recognized as arising
H
SHAYARA BANO v: UNlON OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 1047
[JAGDISfi SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

. out of, pnictices followed by members of particular communities, over . A.
the ages. The only member of the Assembly, who made a presentation
during the debates (-Mohammed Ismail Sahib) stated, "This practice of
follmving 'personal law' has been there amongst the people for ages.
What we \Vant under this am~ndment is that that practice should not be
disturbed now and I want only the continuance Of a practice that has :B
been going on among the people for ages past .... ; Under this amendment
what I want this House to accept is that when we ·speak of the State
doing anything with reference to the secular aspect of religion, the question
of personal law shall not be brought in and it shall not lie affected..... .
The question of professions, practicing.and propagating one's faith is a
right which the human being had from the very beginning oftime and C
that has been recognized as an inalienable right of every human being,
not only in this land, but the world over and I think that nothing should be
done to affect that right of man as a human being. That part of the
article as it stands is properly worded and it should stand as it is.'~ It is
apparent, that the position expressed in the Sarla'Mudgal case40 , clearly
reiterat.es the above exposition during the Constituent Assembly debates. D
The response to the above statement (-of Mohammed Ismail Sahib),
·was delivered by Laksnrnikanta Mitra, who observed, "This article 19 of
the Draft Constitution confers on all persons the right to profess, practise
and propagate any religion they like but this right has been circumscribed
by certain conditions which the State would be free to impose in the E .
interests of public morality, public order and public health and also in so .
far as the right conferred here does not conflictin any way with the
other provisions elaborated under this part of the Constitution. Some of
my Friends argued that this right oughtnot to be permitted in this Draft
Constitution for the simple reason that we have declared time and again
that this is going to be a secular State and as such.practice of religion F
should not be permitted as a fundamental right. It has been further argued
that by conferring the additional right to propagate a particular faith or
religion the door is opened for all manner of troubles and conflicts which
would eventually paralyse the norinaUife of the State. We would say at
once that this conception ofa secular State is whollywrong.. By secular G
State, as we understand it, is meant that the Stateis not going to make
any discrimination whatsoever on the ground of reiigion or comn'lunity
against any person professing any particular form of religi:ous faith. This .
means in essence that no particular religion iil the State will receive any
State patronage whatsoever. The State is not going to establish, patronise fi •
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

-· I
A or endow any particular religion to the exclusion of or in preference to
others and that no citizen in the State will have any preferential treatment
or will be discriminated against simply on the ground that he professed a
particular form of religion...... At the same time we must be very careful
to see that this land of ours we do not deny to anybody the right not only
to profess or practise but also to propagate any particular religion.
B
..... Therefore I feel that the Constitution has rightly provided for this not
only as a right but also as a fundamental right. ln the exercise of this
fundamental right every community inhabiting this State professing any
religion will have equal right and equal facilities to do whatever it likes in
accordance with its religion provided it does not clash with the conditions
c laid down here."
170. The debates in the Constituent Assembly with reference to
Article 25, leave no room for any doubt, that the framers of the
Consti1ution were firm in making 'personal law' a part of the fondamental
rights. With the liberty to the State to provide for social reform. It is
D also necessary to notice at this stage, that the judgment in the Valsamrna
Paul case 20 , cannot be the basis for consideration in the present
controversy, because it did not deal with issues arising out of 'personal
law' which enjoy a constitutional protection. What also needs to be
recorded is, that the judgment in the John Vallamattom case9, expresses
that the: matters of the nature, need to be dealt with through legislation,
E and as such, the view expressed in the above judgment cannot be of any
assistance to further the petitioners' cause.
171. The debates of the Constituent Assembly with reference.to
Article.44, are also relevant. We may refer to draft Article
I
25 (which
came to be enacted as Article 44). The Article requires the State to
F endeavour to secure a uniform 'civil code'. A member who debated the
provision during the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, canvassed
that groups and sections of religious <lenominations be given the right to
adhere to their own personal law (-Mohamed Ismail Sahib), as it was
felt, that interference in 'personal law' would amount to interfering with
G " ... the way oflife and religion of the people ... ". 1t was also argued (-
by Naziruddin Ahmad), that what was extended as a protection through
Article 25 (-draft Article 19), namely," ... all persons are equally entitled
to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and
propagate religion ... ", was SO\)ght to be taken away via Article 44. The
position highlighted, was that all religious practices should remain, beyond
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1049
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

the purview oflaw: One member of the Constituent Assembly (-Mahbood A
Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur), said that the uniform civil code, in the Article,
should not include 'personal law'. He. refuted the suggestions Of
M.Anarithasayartam Ayyangar by asserting, that practices of Muslims,
· in vogue for 1350 years could not be altered. Another member- Pocker
Sahib Bahadur, supported the suggestion of Mohamed Ismail Sahib. The B
question he posed was " ... whether by the freedom we have obtained
for this country, are we going to give up the freedom of conscience and
that freedom of religion practices and that freedom of following ones
own personal law ... " But all these submissions were rejected. All this
leads to the clear understanding, that the Constitution requires the State
to provide foi: a unifom1 civil code, to remedy and assuage, the maladies C
expressed in the submissions advanced by the learned Attorney General.
172. There can be no doubt, that the 'personal law' has been
elevated to the stature of a fundamental right in the Constitution. And as
such, 'personal law' is enforceable as it is. All constitutional Courts, are
the constitutional guardians of all the Fundamental Rights (-included in D
Part Ill of the Constitution). It is therefore the constitutional duty of all
· Courts to protect, preserve and enforce, all fundamental rights, and not
the other way around. It is judicially unthinkable for a Court, to accept
any prayer to declare as unconstituticirial (-or unacceptable in law), for
any reason or logic, what the Constitution declares as a fundamental
right. Because, in accepting the prayer(s), this Court would be denying E
the rights expressly protected under Article 25.
173. It is not possible to adopt concepts emerging from the.
American Constitution, ov.er the provisions of the Indian Constitution. It
is therefore not possible to refer to substantive due process, as the basis
of the decision of the. present controversy, when there are express F
provisions provided for, on the matter in hand, under the Indian
Constitution. It is also not possible, to read into the Constitution, what
the Constituent Assembly consciously and thoughtfully excluded (-or, to
overlook provisions expressly incorporated). One cannot make a
reference to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, though there would G
be no difficulty of their being taken into consideration for persuasive
effect, in support of a cause, in consonance with the provisions of the
Constitution of India and the laws. In fact, this Court is bound by the
judgments of the Supreme Court of India, which in terms of Article 141
of the Constitution, are binding declarations oflaw.
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 174. The prayer made to this Court by those representing the
petitioners' cause, on the ground that the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' is
violative of the concept of constitutional morality cannot be acceded to,
and is accordingly declined.
VIII. Reforms to 'personal I.aw' in India:
B 175. In our consideration, it is also necessary to briefly detail
legislation in India with regard to matters strictly pertaining to 'personal
law', and particularly to the issues of marriage and divorce, i.e., matters
strictly within the confines of 'personal law'.
176 (i). Reference in this context may first of all be made to the
C Divorce Act, 1869. The Statement of objects and reasons of the Bill,
delineates the purpose that was sought to be achieved through the
enactment. Relevant part ~ereof, is reproduced hereunder:-
"Statement of objects and reasons
The object oflndian Divorce Bill is to place the Matrimonial Law
D administered by the High Courts, in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction, on the same footing as the Matrimonial Law
administered by the court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in
England
The 9th Section of the Act of Parliament for establishing High
E Courts of Judicature in India (24 and 25 Vic., C. l 04) provides that
the High Courts shall exercise such Matrimonial Jurisdiction as Her
Majesty by Letters Patent shall grant and direct. Under the
authority thus conferred by Parliament, the 35th Section oftheLetters
Patent, constituting the High Courts of Judicature, provides as
follows:-
F
"And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature
at Fort William in Bengal shall have jurisdiction in matters
matrimonial between our subjects professing the Christian religion.
and that such jurisdiction shall extend to the local limits within which
the Supreme Court now has Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Provided
G always that nothing herein contained shall be held to interfere
with the exercise of any Jurisdiction in matters matrimonial by
any court not established by Royal Charter within the said
Presidency lawfully possessed thereof."
In the Despatch of the Secretary of State transmitting the Letters
H Patent the 33rd and 34th paragraphs are to the following effect:-
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 1051
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"33. Her Majesty's Government are desirous of placing the A
Christian subjects of the Crown within the Presidency in the
same.position under the High Court, as to matters matrimonial in
general as they now are under the Supreme Court, and this they
believe to be effected by Clause 35 ofthe Charter. But they consider
it expedient that the High Court should possess, in addition. the B
power of decreeing divorce which the Supreme Court does not
possess, in other words, that the High Court should have the same
jurisdiction as the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in
England, established in virtue of the Act 20 and 21 Vic., C. 85, and in
regard to which further provisions were made by 22 and 23 Vic.,
C.61, and 23 and 24 Vic., C.144. The Act of Padiament for C
establishing the High Courts, however, does not purport to give to
the Crown the power of importing into the Charter all the
provisions of the Divorce Court Act, and some of them, the Crown
clearly could not so import, such, for instance, as those which
prescribe the p·eriod of re-marriage, and those which exempt D
from punishment clergymen refusing to te-marrv adulterers. All
these are, in truth, matters for Indian legislation, and I request that
you will immediately take the subject into your consideration, and
introduce into your Council a Bill for conferring upon the High Court,
the jurisdiction and powers of the Divorce Court in England, one of
the provisions of which should be to give an appeal to the Privy E
Council in those cases in which the Divorce Court Act gives an
appeal to the House of Lords.
.34. The objects ofthe provision at the end of Clause 35 is to obviate
any doubt that may possibly arise as towhether, by vesting the High
Court· with the powers of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial F
Causes in England, it was intended to take away from the Courts
within Divisions of the Presidency, not established by Royal Charter,
any jurisdiction which they might have in matter.s matrimonial, as
for instance in a suit for alimony between Armenians or Native
Christians. With any such jurisdiction it is not intended to interfere."
G
In addition to the Act of Parliament mentioned by the Secretary of
State as regulating the jurisdiction of the England Divorce Court the
Statute 25 and 26 Vic., Ch.81 has been passed in the year just expired
(1862). The obje~t of this statute is to render perpetual 23 and 24
Vic., Ch. 144 the duration ofwhich had been originally limited to two
years. H
1054 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A
' .
The draft of a Bill has been prepared to give effect to t!ie Secretary
• of State's instructions, but some variations from the English Statutes
in respect of Procedure have been adopted..
With a view to uniformity in practice in the several branches of
jurisdiction, the Bill provides that the Procedure of the Code ofCivil
B Procedure shallbe followed, instead of the Rules of Her Majesty's
Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England, and it omits
the provision in 20 and 21 Vic., Ch. 85 respecting the occasional trial
of questions of fact by juries."
(ii) The Divorce Act, 1869 provided for the grounds for dissolution of
c marriage in Section 10 thereof. The same is extracted hereunder:"
"IO.Grounds for dissolution of marriage.-(!) Any marriage
solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the
Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition
presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, ·
D · be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the
marriage, the respondent-
. (i) has committed adultery; or
· (ii) has ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion;
or
E
(iii) has been incurably ofunsoi.md niind for a continuous period
of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation
of the petition; or
(iv) has, for a period of not less than two years immediately
preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a
F
virulent and incurable form ofleprosy; or
(v) has, for a period of not less than two years immediately
· preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from
venereal disease in a communicable
' .
form; or ·
G (vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven
. years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard
of the respondent ifthe respondent had been alive; or
(vii) has wilfully refused to.consummate the marriage and the
marriage has not therefore been consummated; or
H
. '• .

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1053
[JAGDISHSINGHKHEHAR,
. . CJI] .

(viii) has failed to comply with a decree for restitution ofeonjugal · A ·
rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of .
the decree against the respondent; or
. (ix) has deserted the petitioner forat least two years immediately .
preceding the presentation of the petition; or
· (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a B
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would
be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the
respondent.
·. (2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolutionofher
marriage on the ground that the husband has, since the c
· .solemnization .of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or
bestiality."
(iii) In addition to the above, consequent upon a further amendment,
Section 1OA was added thereto, to provide for dissolution of marriage by
. consent. What is sought to be highlighted is, that it required legislation to D
· ·.· provide for divorce amongst the followers of the Christian faith in India.
The instant legislation provided for grounds on which Christian husbands
and wives
.. could obtain divorce.
' .
. ·. ..
· · 177 (i).Parsis in India, are. the followers of the Iranian prophet
Zoroaster.· The Parsis, are stated to have migrated from Iran to India, to E
. avoid religious persecution by the Milslims. ·Parsis in India were governed
in th~ matter of marriage arid divorce by their 'personal law~. For the
first time in 1865, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act was passed. The
· same was substituted by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 .
.·after substantial amendments to the original enactment. ·The statement F
of objects and reasons of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
clearly demonstrates the above position. The same isreproduced below:-
-' ' ~ .

"Staternentofobjects and reasons
The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act at present in force was
passed in 1865 .. Since then circumstances have greatly altered G .
andto some extent there has also been a change in the sentiments
·and views of the Parsi community. Hence a necessityJorsome
change in· the law has been .felt for years~ The Parsi Central
· .Association took up the question in 1923 and avpointed a Sub-
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Committee to suggest amendments. The Sub-Committee
submitted a report which the Association got printed and circulated
for opinion to most other Parsi Associations as well as prominent
members of the community both in Bombay and outside. Many
suggestions were made, and among them by the Trustees of the
Bombay Parsi Panchayat who had the advantage of seeing the
B
suggestions of others. The Central Association adopted the
suggestions of the Panchayat Trustees and reprinted the whole
and again circulated it. Fresh suggestions were thereupon made
in the press, on the platform, by associations and individuals.
These were fully considered by the Trustees as well as the
c Association and the present draft is the result. On the whole it
represents, the views of the great majority of the community,
and has been approved by leading Parsis like Sir Dinshaw E.
Wacha and the late Rt. Hon. Sir Dinshaw F. Mulla."
(ii) Chapter II of the aforesaid enactment, deals with the subject of
D marriages between Parsis. Section 3 provides for requisites of a valid
Parsi- marriage. Section 6 denotes a requirement of a certificate of
marriage. Chapter lV provides for a variety of matrimonial suits, wherein
Section 30 deals with suits for nullity. Section 31 deals with suits for
dissolution of marriage. The grounds for divorce are set out in Section
32, which is reproduced herein below:-
E
"32.Grounds for divorce.- Any married person may sue for
divorce on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated within one year
after its solemnization owing to the wilful refusal of the defendant
F to consummate it;
(b) that the defendant at the time of the marriage was of unsound
mind and has been habitually so up to the date of the suit:
Provided that divorce shall not be granted on this ground, unless
the plaintiff; ( 1) was ignorant of the fact at the time of the
G marriage, and (2) has filed the suit within three years from the
date of the marriaEe;
_(bb) that the defendant has been incurable of the unsound mind
for a period of two years or upwards immediately preceding the
filing of the suit or has been suffering continuously or intermittently
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OFINDIA AND OTHERS. 1055
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

from
. mental disorder of such kind and to such an extent that- the A
plaintiffcannot reasonable be expected to live with the defendant.
Explanation.· In this clause,·
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness,
arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic
· disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes B
. schizophrenia;
(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent
disorder of disability of mind (whether or not including
· subnormality of intelligence} which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the C
defendant, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to
medical treatment;
(c) that the defendant was at the time of marriage pregnant by
some person other than the plaintiff:
D
Provided.that divorc.e shall not be granted on this ground, unless:·
( 1) the plaintiff was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the
fact alleged, (2) the suit has been filed within tw,o years of the
date of marriage, and (3) marital intercourse has not taken place
after the plaintiff came to know· of the fact;
E
· (d) .that the defendant has sinre the niairiagb cotllinitted ~dultery
or fornication or bigamy or rape or an unnatural offence:
· Provided that divorce shall not be granted on this ground if the
suit has been filed more than two years after the plainti(f came
to know of the fact; ·
F
(dd) that the defendant has since the solemnization of the inarriage
treated the plaintiff with ci·uelty or has behaved in such a way as
to render it in the judgment oftheCourtimproperto compel the
plaintiff to live withthedefendant:
Provided that in every suit for divorce on this ground it shall be in G
the discretion of the Court whether it should grant a decree for
divorce or forjudicial separation only;
(e) that the defendant has since the marriage voluntarily caused
grievous hurt to the plainti.ff or has infected the plaintiff with
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

.A venereal disease or, where the defendant is the husband, has
compelled the wife to submit herself to prostitution:
Provided that divorce shall not be granted on this ground if the
suit has been filed more than two years (i) after the infliction of
the grievous hurt, or (ii) after the plaintiff came to know of the
B infection, or (iii) after the last act of compulsory prostitution;
(f) that the defendant is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment
for seven years or more for an offence as defined in the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860):
Provided that divorce shall not be granted on this ground, unless
c the defendant has prior to the filing of the suit undergone at least
one year's imprisonment out of the said period;
(g) that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for at least two
years;

D (h) that an order has been passed against the defendant by a
· Magistrate awarding separate maintenance to the plaintiff. and
the parties have not had marital intercourse for one year or more
· since such decree or order;
(j) that the defendant has ceased to be a Parsi by conversion to
another religion;
E
Provided that divorce shall not be granted on this ground if the
suit has been filed more than two years after the plaintiff came
to know of the fact.
(iii) In addition.to the above, Section 32B introduced by way of an
F amendment, provides for divorce by mutual consent, and Section 34
provides for suits for judicial separation, and Section 36 provides for
suits forrestitution of conjugal rights.
178 (i); The Special Marriage Act, 1872 provided for inter-faith
marriages. The same came to be replaced by the Special Marriage Act,
G 1954. The statement of objects and reasons. thereof is reproduced
hereunder:- t
"Statement of objects and reasons
This Bill revises and seeks to replace the Special Marriage Act
of 1872 so as to provide a special form of marriage which can
H
SHAYARA. BANO v. UNION OF !NOIA AND OTHERS . 1057
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

be taken advantage of by any person in India and by all Indian · A
nationals in foreign countries irrespective of the faith which either
party to the marriage may profess. The parties may observe any.
ceremonies for the solemnization of their marriage. but certain·,.;
formalities are prescribed before the marriage can be registered
by the Marriage Officers. For the benefit of lndia(l citizens
abroad, the Bill provides for the appointment ofDiplomatic and B
Consular Officers as Marriage Officers for solemnizing and
registering marriages between citizens of India in a foreign
country.
2. Provision is also sought to be made for permitting persons ·
who are already married under other forms of marriage to register . C
.. their marriages under this Act and thereby avail themselves of·
these provisions.
3. The bill is drafted generally on the lines ofthe existing Special
Marriage Act of 1872 and the notes on clauses attached hereto
explain some of the changes made in the Bill in greater detail." D
(ii) The subject of solemnization of special marriages, is provided for in
Section 4 of the above enactment. Section 4 lays down the conditions
related to.~olemnization of special marriages, which requires a·notice of
the parties intending to get married, the procedure and conditions whereof
are contained in Section 5. The provisions of the enactment require, E
entering a copy .of the notice in the 'marriage notice book', imd the
publication thereof by affixation of the copy thereof to some cqnspicuous
place in the office of marriage officer. Objections to the contemplated
marriage can be preferred under Section 7. The manner in which the
objections have to be dealt with Is provided for in Sections 8, 9 and 1O, F
Consequent upon the completion of the formalities postulated in Chapter
II of the enactment, parties are permitted to solemnize their marriage,
for which the marriage officer shaH issue a certificate of marriage, that
would be considered as conclusive evidence of the fact that parties are
married under the provisions of the Special Marriages Act, 1954. J
G
(iii) Parties who have entered into a matrimonial alliance by way of
ceremonies of marriage conducted under different faiths, and have been
living together, are also permitted to register their marriage under the .
Special Marriage Act, 1954, under Section 15 thereof.
(iv) Chapter IV of the enactment deals with consequences of marriage .H,
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A under the Act. Chapter V provides the remedies ofrestitution of conjugal
rights and judicial separation. Chapter VI defines void and voidable
marriages, and provides for nullity of marriage and divorce. Section 27
included in Chapter Vlincorporates the grounds for divorce, which are
extracted hereunder:-
B "27.Divorce.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the
rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented
to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the
ground that the respondent-
(a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary
c sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse;
or
(b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less
than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition; or
D (c) is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or
more for an offence as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860);
(d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the
petitioner with cruelty: or
E
(e) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind
and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation.-.ln this clause,-
F
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness,
arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic
disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes
schizophrenia;
G (b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent
disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-
norrnality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive
or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the respondent,
and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical
treatment; or
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 1059
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(t) has been suffering from venereal disease in ,11 communicable A
fonn; or·
(g) has been suffering from leprosy, the disease not having been
contacted from the petitioner; or
(h) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven
years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard B
of the respondent if the respondent had been alive;
Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expression "desertion"
means desertion ofthe petitioner by the other party to the marriage
without reasonable cause and without the consent or, against the
wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner C
by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
(lA)A wife may also present a petition for divorce to the district
court on the ground,- \
D
(i) that her husband has, since the solemnization ofthe marriage.
been guilty of rape. sodomy or bestiality;
(ii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in a proceeding under
section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 ofl 974)
E
(or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code ofCriminal
Procedure, 1898) (5of1898), a decree or order.as the case may
be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance
to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that
since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between
the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards. F
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made
thereunder, either party to a marriage, whether solemhized before
or after the commencement of the Special Marriage
(Amendment) Act, 1970 (29 ofl 970), may present a petition for
divorce to the district court on the ground- G
(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between
the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards
after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding
to which they were parties; or
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between
the parties to the marriage for a period of one year oi: upwards
after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in
a proceeding to which they were parties."
In addition to the above, Section 28 provides for divorce by mutual
B consent.
179. The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 followed the Special
Marriage Act, 1954. It was enacted on account of uncertainty of law
related to foreign marriages. The statement of objects and reasons of
the Foreign Marriage Act, l 969 expresses the holistic view,which led to
c the passing of the legislation. The same is reproduced below;-
"Statement of objects and reasons
This Bill seeks to implement the Twenty-third Report of the Law
Commission on the law relating to foreign marriages. There· is,
at present considerable uncertainty as to the law on the subject,
D as the existing legislation touches only the fringes of the subject
• and the matter is governed by principles of private international
law which are by no means well-settled, and which cannot readily
be applied to a country such as ours in which different marriage
laws apply to different communities. The Special Marriage Act,
1954 sought to remove the uncertainty to some extent by
E providing that marriages abroad between citizens of India who
are domiciled in India might be solemnized under it.
In the course of the debates in relation to that Act in Parliament.
it was urged that a provision should be made for marriages abroad
where one of the parties alone is an Indian citizen. Jn this context.
.F an assurance was given that Government would. after careful
consideration, introduce comprehensive legislation on the subject
of foreign marriages. The present Bill is the outcome of that
· assurance.
(2) The Bill is modelled on the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and
..
·G the existing English and Australian Legislation on the subject of
foreign marriages, subject to certain important modifications
rendered necessary by the peculiar conditions obtaining in our
country.
The following are the salient features of the Bill:-
H (i) It provides for an enabling form of marriage more or less on
SHAYARA BANO .v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1061
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

the same lines as the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which can be A
availed of outside India where one of the parties to the maniage
is an Indian citizen; the fonn of marriage thus provided being not
.. iri supersession of, but only in addition to or as an alternative to;
any other form that might be pennissible to the parties.
(ii) It seeks to lay down certain mies in respect of capacity of B
parties and conditions of validity of marriage and also provides
for registration of marriage on lines similar to those in the Special
. Marriage Act, 1954.
(iii) The provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 1954, in regard
to matrimonial reliefs are sought to be made applicable, with c
suitable modifications, not only to niarriages solemnized or
registered under the proposed legislation. but also to other
marriages solemnized abroad to which a citizen of India is a
Pfil!Y."
(ii) Chapter H of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 provides for the D
solemnization of the foreign marriages. Section 4 contained therein
expresses the conditions relating to solemnization of foreign marriages.
The notice of an intended marriage is provided for in Section 5. The
incorporation of the said marriage in the 'marriage notice book' is
contained in Section 6. The publication of such notice is provided for in
Section 7. Objections to the proposed marriage can be filed under Section E
8. Consequent upon the fulfillment of the conditions and determination
by the marriage officer, the place and fonn of solemnization of marriage
are detailed in Section 13, whereupon, the marriage officer is required t~
enter a certificate of marriage, which is accepted as evidence of the
fact that the marriage between the parties had been solemnized. Chapter F
Ill mandates the registration of foreign marriages, solemnized under
other laws. Section 17 provides for necessary requirements therefor. ·
(v) It would be relevant to mention, that matrimonial reliefs as are
provided for tinder the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (-which are contained
in Chapters IV, V and VI thereot) have been adopted for marriages G
registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (-see paragraph 179
above).
'- 180. Muslims are followers.oflslam. Muslims consider the Quran
thefr holy book. For their personal relations, they follow the Muslim
'personal law' - 'Shariat'. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A ApplicationAct, 1937, as already noticed above provided, "the rule of
decision" in matters pertaining, inter alia, to marriage, dissoliltion of
marriage including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and thubaraat would be the
Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat', and·not, any custom or usage to the
contrary. It is therefore, that by a statutory intervention, customs and
usages in conflict with Muslim 'personal law', were done away with, in
B
connection with 'personal law' matters, in relation to Muslims. The
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provided, grounds for
dissolution of marriage to Muslim women, under Section 2 of the above
enactment. Details with reference to 1937 and 1939 legislations, have
already been narrated, in Part IV - Legislation in India, in the field of
C Muslim 'personal law'. Reference may, therefore, be made to Part IV
above.
· 181 (i). The law of marriage and divorce amongst Hindus, has
had a chequered histo1y. A marriage, according to Hindu law, is a holy
sacrament, and not a contract (as is the case of Muslims). Originally
D there were eight forms of Hindu marriages, four of which were
considered regular - and the rest irr~gul<ir. The choice of marriage, was
limited only to one's own religion and caste. Polygamy was permitted
amongst Hindus, -i:mt not polyandly. Widow marriage was also not
permitted. Legislation in respect of Hindu marriages commenced in 1829
when Sati was abolished by law. In 1856, Hindu Widows' Remarriage
E Act, legalized the marriage of Hindu widows. In 1860, the Indian Penal
Code made polygamy a criminal offence. In 1866, Native Converts
Marriage Dissolution Act facilitated divorce for Hindus, who had adopted
the Christian faith. In 1872, Special Marriage Act was enacted, but it
excluded Hindus. In 1869, the Indian Divorce Act was passed, but this
F too remained inapplicable to H~ndus. In 1909, the Anand Marriage Act
legalized marriages amongst Sikhs (called - Anand). In 1923, by an
amendment to the Special Marriage Act, inter-religious civil marriages
between Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains were legalized. In 1937, the
Arya Marriage Validation Act legalized the inter-caste marriages, and
maniages with converts to Hinduism, among the followers ofArya Samaj.
G In 1949, Hindu Marriages Validity Act legalized inteMeligious marriages.
(ii) The Hindu Marriage Act, was passed in 195 5. Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 195 5, provides for the conditions ofa valid Hindu marriage.
Section 7 incorporates the ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage.
Section 8 provides for the requirement of registration of Hindu marriages.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1063
' .
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

The remedies of restitution of conjugal rights and j l.\di~ia\ separatiOn, are A
provided for in Sections 9. and .10 i;espectively. :i>rovisiop.s relaie~l~q
nullity of marriages and divorce are c011taineci in Sections. 11 and J 2.
The grounds of divorce have been expressed in Secti.on l~, which is
reproduced below:- · ·
"13.Divorce.- (lf~ny marriage solemnized, whether before or . B ·
after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presenteq
by either the husband or the wife, be dissolyed by a decree of
divorce on the ground that the other party~. . . ·
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary
sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; .C .
or
{ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, .treated the
·petitioner with cruelty; or. · · · . . · ·... · : . ·• · · ·
(ib) has deserted the petitioner fcif a 'contiimous period of not ·
less than tWo years immediately pre"ceding the presentation of
the petition; or · ' ·· D
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering
continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a
kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably E ·
be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation- In this clause,-
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means mental illness,
arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic
disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and include F
schizophrenia;
(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a: persistent
disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub- ·
normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive
or seriously irresponsible conduct on the .part of the other party G
and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical
treatment; or
(iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of
leprosy; or
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (v) has been suffering from veneral disease in a communicable
form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven
years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard
B of it, had that party been alive;
Explanation.- in this sub-section, the expression "desertion"
means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the
marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or
. against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of
c the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its
grammatical variations and cognate expression shall be constmed
accordingly.
(1-A) Either party to a marriage, whethe~ solemnized before or
after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition
D for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the
ground-
(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between
the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards
after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding
E to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between
the pai1ies to the marriage for a period of one year or upward
after the passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in a
proceeding to which they were parties ..
F (2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her
marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground-
(i) in the case of any marriage solemnized before the
commencement of this Act, that the husband had mai·ried again
before such commencement or that any other wife of the
G
husband married before such commencement was alive at the
time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner:
Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of
the presentation of the petition; or
(ii)that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage,
H been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality; or
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1065
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(iii) that in a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and ~
Maintenance Act, 1956 (78of1956), or in a proceeding under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 ofl 974)
or under corresponding Section 488 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), a decree or order, as the case may
be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance B
to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that
since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between
the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards; or
(iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was
solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years,and she
has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before C
attaining the age of eighteen years.
Explanation.- This clause applies whether the marriage was
solemnized before or after the comn1encementofthe Marriage
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68of1976)."
0
By subsequent amendments, Section 13B was introduced, which provides
for divorce by mutual consent.
182. A perusal of the details pertaining to legislation in India with
regard to matters pertaining to 'personal law', and particularly to issues
of marriage and divorce for different religious communities reveals, that E
'all issues governed by 'personal.law', were only altered by way of
legislation. There is not a singular instance ofjudicial intervention, brought
to our notice. except a few judgments rendered by High Courts (-for
details, refer to Part-6 _:°Judicial pronouncements, on the subject of 'talaq-
e•biddat'). These judgments, however, attempted the interpretative
course, as against an invasive one. The details depicted above relate to F
marriage between Christians, Parsis, inter-faith marriages, Muslims and
Hindus, including Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. The tmbroken practice
during the pre-independence period, and the post independence period-
under the Constitution, demonstrates a clear and unambiguous course,
namely, reform in the matter of marriage and divorce (which are integral G
components of'personal law') was only introduced through legislation.
Therefore in continuation of the conclusion already recorded, namely,
all
that it is the constitutional duty of courts to preserve and protect .
'personal law' as a fundamental right, any change thereof, has to be
only by legislation under Articles 25(2) and 44, read with entry 5 of the
Concurrent List contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A IX. Impact of international conventions and declarations on 'talaq-e-
Qiddat':
183. A number of learned counsel who assisted us in support of
the petitioners' cause were emphatic, that the practice of'talaq-e-biddat'
was rendered impermissible, as soon as, India accepted to be a signatory
B to international conventions and declarations, with which the practice
was in clear conflict. It was submitted, that continuation of the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat', sullied the image of the country internationally, as the
nation was seen internationally as a defaulters to those conventions and
declarations. It was pointed out, that by not consciously barring 'talaq-
e-biddat', and by knowingly allowing the practice to be followed, India
C was seen as persisting and propagating, what the international community
considers abhorrent. It was therefore submitted, that the practice of
'talaq-e-biddat' be declared as unacceptable in law, since it was in conflict
with international conventions and declarations.
184. We may, in the first instance, briefly point out to the
D submissions advanced by Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel. She
placed reliance on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly as far back as in 1948. She
drew our attention to the preamble thereof, to emphasise, that the
declaration recognized the inherent dignity of human beings as equal
E and inalienable. She highlighted the fact, that the declaration envisioned
equal rights for men and women - both in dignity and rights. For this, she
placed reliance on Article 1 of the Declaration. Referring to Article 2,
she asserted, that there could be no discrimination on the basis of sex.
Learned senior counsel evoked the conscience of this Court, to give
effect to the declaration, to which.India was a signatory. This Court's
F attention was also invited to the International Conventions on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The pointed aim whereof was to
eliminate all forms of discrimination, including.discrimination on the basis
of sex. It was highlighted, that the International Conventions Bill for
Rights for Women was ratified by 189 States. Referring to Article 1
G thereof, it was submitted, that the objective of the convention was to
eradicate discrimination against women. Having signed the aforesaid
convention, it was submitted, that it was the obligation of all the signatory
States, to take positive and effective steps for elimination of all facets of
discrimination against women. It was highlighted, that 'talaq-e-biddat'
was the worst form of discrimination, against women.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1067
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, cnr

185. Learned Attorney General for India strongly supported the A
instant contention. It was his pointed assertion, that the Indian State
was obligated to adhere the principles enshrined in international
conventions. It was highlighted, that India was a founding member of
the United Nations, and was bound by its charter. It was submitted, that
gender equality as a human right, had been provided for in va1ious B
conventions and declarations. We do not consider the necessity to repeat
the subrnissjons canvassed at the hands of the learned Attorney General,
who painstakingly adverted to the same, to support his prayer, that 'talaq-
e-biddat' was a practice which violated a number of conventions to which
. India was a signatory. Details in this behalf, have been recorded by us
in paragraph 74, while recording the submissions advanced by the learned C
Attorney General. The same be read herein, in continuation of the
submissions briefly noticed above .
.186. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners, pointedly with reference to international conventions and
declarations. We have not the least doubt, that the Indian State is D
·committed to gender equality. This is the clear mandate of Article 14 of
the Constitution. India is also committed to eradicate discrimination on
the ground of sex. Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, prohibit any
kind of discrimination on the basis of sex. There is therefore no reason
or necessity while examining the issue of 'talaq-e-biddat', to fall back
upon international conventions and declarations. The Indian Constitution E
itself provides for the same.
187. The reason for us, not to accede to the submissions advanced
at the behest of those who support the petitioners' cause, with pointed
reference to international conventions and declarations, is based on Article
25 of the Constitution, whereby 'personaJ··law' of all religious F
denominations, is sought to be preserved. The protection of 'personal
laws' of religious sections, is elevated to the stature of a fundamental
right, .inasmuch as Article 25 of the Constitution, which affords such
protection to 'personal law' is a part of Part III (-Fundamental Rights),
of the Constitution. It is therefore apparent, that whilst the Constitution G
of India supports all conventions and declarations which call for gender
equality, the Constitution preserves 'personal law' through which religious
communities and denominations have governed themselves, as an
exception.

H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 188. Our affirmation, that international conventions and
declarations are not binding to the extent they are in conflict with domestic
laws, can be traced from a series of judgments rendered by this Court
on the subject. Reference is being made to some of them herein below:
(i) Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra41 ,
B The question that arose for consideration before this Colllt, in the instant
case was, whether an ~ction of a superior against a sub-ordinate female
employee, which is against moral sanctions can withstand the test of
decency and modesty, not amounting to sexual harassment? The question
that arose was, whether the allegation that a superiortried to molest an
c inferior female employee at the work place, constituted &n act unbecoming
of the conduct and behaviour expected from the superior? And, whether
an inferior female employee, has recourse to a remedial action? While
examining the above proposition, this Court relying on international
conventions and declarations arrived at the conclusion, that the same
have to be given effect to unless they were contrary to domestic laws,
D by holding as under:
"26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual
harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the
fundamental right to gender equality and the right to life and
liberty- the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed
E by the Constitution of India. As early as in 1993, at the ILO
Seminar held at Manila, it was recognized that sexual harassment·
of women at the workplace was a form of"gender discrimination
against women". In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental
. rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude
F to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention
of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a
constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fondamental
rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work
is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs
to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such
G violations, admits of no debate. The message of international
instrnments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms ofDiscriminationAgainst Women, 1979 ("CEDAW") and
the Beijing Declaration which directs all State parties to take
' to prevent discrimination of all forms against
appropriate measures
H •1 (1999) 1sec759
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1069
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

- women besides taking steps to protect the honour and dignity of A
women is loud and clear. The International Covenant on
.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains several provisions
, particularly important for women. Article 7 recognises her right
'

to fair conditions of work and reflects that women shall not be
subjected to sexual harassment at the place of work which may B .
vitiate the working environment. These international instruments
cast an obligation on the Indian State to gender-sensitise its laws
and the courts are under an obligation to see that the message of
the international instrnments is not allowed to be drowned. This
Court has in numerous cases emphasised that while discussing
_constitutional requirements, court and counsel must never forget C
the core principle embodied in the international conventions and
instrnments and as far as po_ssible, give effect to the princ_iples
contained in those international instruments. The courts are under
an obligation to give due· regard to international conventions and
norms for construing domestic laws, more so, when there is no D
inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law.
(See with advantage - Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Admn .
. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D' Costa; Sheela
Barse v. Secy., Children's Aid Society SCC at p. 54; Vishaka v.
State ofRajasthan People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India and D.I(. Basu v. State of W.B. SCC at p. 438.) E
27. In cases involving violation of human rights, the courts must
forever remain alive to the international instruments and
conventions and apply the same to a given case when there is no
inconsistency between the international norms and the domestic
law occupying the field. In the instant case, the High Court · F
appears to have totally ignored the intent and content of the
international conventions and n01ms while dealing with the case."
(ii) Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattaraya G. Hegde42
In the instant case, this Court relied upon· international conventions to
determine the true import of 'burden of proof', under the Negotiable G
Instruments Act, 1881. This Court held as under: •
"44. The presumption· of innocence is a human right. (See
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
" (2bos) 4 sec 54
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v.
CBI.) Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights
provides: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." Although
India is not bound by the aforementioned Convention and as
such it may not be necessary like the countries forming European
B
countries to bring common Jaw into land with the Convention, a
balancing of the accused's rights and the interest of the society
is required to be taken into consideration. In India, however,
subject to the statutory interdicts, the said principle forms the
basis of criminal jurisprudence. For the aforementioned purpose
c the nature of the offence, seriousness as also gravity thereof
may be taken into consideration. The courts must be on guard to
see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated
under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same
may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction. It is for the
aforementioned reasons that we have taken into consideration
D
the decisions operating in the field where the difficulty of proving
a negative has been emphasised. It is not suggested that a
. negative can never be proved but there are cases where such
difficulties are faced by the accused e.g. honest and reasonable
mistake of fact. In a recent article The Presumption of Innocence
E and Reverse Burdens: A Balancing Duty published in 2007 CLJ
(March Part) 142 it has been stated:
"In determining whether a reverse burden is compatible with the
presumption of innocence regard should also be had to the
pragmatics of proof. How difficult would it be for the prosecution
F to prove guilt without the reverse burden? How easily could an
innocent defendant discharge the reverse burden? But courts
will not allow these pragmatic considerations to override the
legitimate rights of the defendant. Pragmatism will have greater
sway where the reverse burden would not pose the risk of great
injustice-where the offence is not too serious or the reverse
G burden only concerns a matter incidental to guilt. And greater
weight will be given to prosecutorial efficiency in the regulatory
environment."
45. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has
been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1071.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability fo A
promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard
the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is
essential to the economic life of a developing country like India.
This. however, shall not mean that the coi.u1s shall put a blind
eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising. of B
presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption
drawn should be held to haverebutted. Other important principles
oflegal jurisprudence, namely, presumption of innocence as human .
rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by Section
139 should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts,
indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each C
case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal
principles governing the same."
(iii) State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties43
· The issue that arose for consideration in the instant case was with
reference to the binding nature of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations D
Convention, 1957 and the declarations on the Rights oflndigenous People,
2007. · Even though India had ratified convention and declaration, it was
held, that the same were not binding. Reference may be made to the
following observations recorded in the above judgment:
"105. We may notice that in Indigenous and Tribal Populations E
Convention, 1957 which has been ratified by 27 countries including
India contained the following clauses:
"Article 11.-The right of ownership, collective or individual, of
the members of the populations concerned over the lands which
these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised. .f
Article 12.-1. The populations concerned shall not be removed
without their free consent from their habitual territories except
· in. accordance with national lilws and regulations for reasons
relating to national security, or in the interest of national economic
development or of the health of the said populations. G
2. When in such cases removal of these populations is necessary .
.as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with lands of
quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by
"(2009) 8 SCC-46
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future
development. In cases where chances of alternative employment
exist and where the populations concerned prefer to have
compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated
under appropriate guarantees.
B 3. Persons thus removed shall be fully compensated for any
resulting loss or injmy.
Article 13.-1. Procedures for the transmission of rights of
ownership and use ofland which are established by the customs
of the populations concerned shall be respected, within the
c framework ofnational laws and regulations, insofar as they satisfy
the needs of these populations and do not hinder their economic
and social development.
2. Arrangements shall be made to prevent persons who are not
members of the populations concerned from taking advantage
D of these customs or of lack of understanding of the laws on the
part of the members of these populations to secure the ownership
or use of the lands belonging to such members."
Thus, removal of the population, by way of an exceptional
measure, is not. ruled out. It is only subject to the condition that
E lands of qualit.y at least equal to that of the lands previously
occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and
future development. We may, however, notice that this Convention
has not been ratified.by many countries in the Convention held in
1989. Those who have ratified the 1989 Convention are not bound
byit.
F
106. Furthermore, the United Nations adopted a Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous People in September 2007. Articles 3
to 5 thereof read as under:
"3. Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By
virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
G
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
4. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self- \

determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in
matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways
and means for financing their autonomous functions.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1073.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] ·-- -

5. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen A
their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural
institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they
so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of
the State."
107. It is now accepted that thePanchasheel doctrine which . B
provided that the tribes could flourish and develop only if the
State interfered minimally and functioned chiefly as a support
system in view of passage of time is no longer valid. Even the
notion of autonomy contained in the J989 Convention has been.
rejected by India. However, India appears to have softened its
stand against autonomy for tribal people and it has voted in favour c
of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People which affirms various rights to autonomy that are inherent
in the tribal peoples of the world. T.his declaration, however, is
not binding." .
(iv) Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union oflndia44 D
In the instant case, the question that arose for consideration revolved
around the validity of the inhuman practice of manually removing night
soil, which involves removal of human excrements from dty toilets with
bare hands, brooms or metal scrappers, and thereupon, carrying the same
in bask(!ts to dumping sites for disposal. Dealing with the issue in the
E
context ofintemational conventions and declarations, this Court observed
asuncler:
"16. Apart from the provisions of the Constitution, there are
various international conventions and covenants to which India
· is a party, which proscribe the inhuman practice of manual
scavenging .. These are the Universal Declaration of Human F
Rights (UDHR), the Convention on the Elirninatiop. ofAll Forms
of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW). The relevant provisions"uf UDHR, CERD and
CEDAW are hereunder: G
Ar6cle.J of UDHR
·"'I. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ·
They. are etJ.dowed with reason and conscience- and should act
towards one another in a spirit ofprotherhood."
.. (2014) 1i sec 224
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A A11icle 2 of UDHR
"2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in
thiS'Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, langl.lage, religion, political or other opinion, national
"' or social origin, property, birth or other status."
B Article 23(3) ofUDHR
"23. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy ofhuman dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other
means of social protection."
c
Article 5(a) ofCEDAW
"5. States parties shall take all appropriate measures-
(a) to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men
and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudice
D and customary and all other practices which are based on the
idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or
on stereotyped roles for men and women;"
Article 2 of CERD
"2. (1) States parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake
E
to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of
eliminating racial discrimination in all its fonns and promoting
understanding among all races, and, to this end-
* * *
F (c) each State party shall take effective measures to review
governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind
or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of
creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) each State party shall prohibit and· bring to an end, by all
G appropriate means, including legislation as required by
circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or
organisation;"
The above provisions of the International Covenants. which have
been ratified by India, are binding to the extent that they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law."
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UN10N OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1075
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CH] .

. 189. In view of the above, we are satisfied; that international A
conventions and declarations. are ofutqfost trnr6rtance, a,rid pfre rq be
taken into considerationwhile irtterpreting Cioniesticlaw~. Blit, thete'i.s>
one important exception to the above role, and that is, that ii1tematiorial '·,.
conventions as are not iJ\fOnflict With domestic law;albll.e can be'relfod.
up0 n. ·We are of the firm opinion, thatthe disputation in handfallsjn.the · l3
above exception. Insofar as 'personal law'. is concerned, the same has
constitutional protection. Therefore if 'personal law' is in conflict with
international conventions and declarations, 'personal law' wiHprevaiL
The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners to hold the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat', on account it being in conflict with.co'rlventioll.s and
declarations
.
to which India is a signatory can therefore not be .acceded C
' '
to.
X. Concl~sions emerging out of the abbve eonslderation:
·' - ', . . :. .. . . . . · ·. .
190. The following conclusions emerge fromthe considera.tions .
recorded at l to lX above:
D
(1) Despite the decision of the Rashid Ahmad case 1 on the subject of
'talaq-e-biddat', by the J>rivy Couqcil, the issue needs.a fresh examination,
in view of the subsequent developments inthe matter.
(2)All.the parties were unanimoµs, that despite the practice of 'talaq-e-
biddat' being considered sinful, it was accepted amongst Sunni Muslims E
belonging to the Hanafi school, as valid in law, and has been in practice
amongst them.
(3) It would not be appropriate for this Court, to record a finding, whether
the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' is, or is not, affirmed by 'hadiths ', in view
of the enormous contradictions in the 'hadiths ',relied upon by the rival
F
parties.
(4) 'Talaq-e-biddat' is integral to the religious denomination of Sunnis
belonging to the Hanafi school. The same is a part of their faith, having
been followed for more than 1400 years, and as such, has to be accepted
·as being constituent of their 'personal law'.
G
(5) The contention of the petitioners, that the questions/subjects covered
by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, ceased to
be 'personal law', and got transformed into 'statutory law', cannot be
accepted, and is accordingly rejected.
(6) 'Talaq-e-biddat', does not violate the parameters expressed in Article H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 25 of the Constitution. The practice is not contrary to public order, morality
and health. The practice also does not violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of
the Constitution, which are limited to State actions alone.
(7) The practice of'talaq-e-biddat' being a constituent of 'personal law'
has a stature equal to other fundamental rights, conferred in Part Ill of
B the Constitution. The practice cannot therefore be set aside, on the
ground of being violative of the concept of the constitutional morality,
through judicial intervention.
(8) Reforms to 'personal law' in India, with reference to socially
unacceptable practices in different religions, have come about only by
c way oflegislative intervention. Such legislative intervention is permissible
under Articles 25(2) and 44, read with entry 5 of the Concurrent List,
contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The said procedure
alone need to be followed with reference to the practice of 'talaq-e-
biddat', ifthe same is to be set aside.
D (9) International conventions and declarations are ofno avail in the present
controversy, because the practice of'talaq-e-biddat', is a component of
'personal law', and has the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution.
Part-10.
The declaration:
E
191. The whole nation seems to be up in arms. There is seemingly
an ove1whelming majority ofMuslim-women, demanding that the practice
of 'talaq-e-biddat' which is sinful in theology, be declared as impermissible
in law. The Union of India, has also participated in the debate. It has
adopted an aggressive posture, seeking the invalidation of the practice
F by canvassing, that it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Part
III of the Constitution, and by further asserting, that it even violates
constitutional morality. During the course of hearing, the issue was hotly
canvassed in the media. Most of the views expressed in erudite articles
on the subject, hugely affirmed that the practice was demeaning.
Interestingly even during the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing
G for the rival parties, were in agreement, and described the practice of
'talaq-e-biddat' differently as, unpleasant, distasteful and unsavory. The
position adopted by others was harsher, they considered it as disgusting,
loathsome and obnoxious. Some even described it as being debased,
abhorrent and wretched.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1077
. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] .

192. We have arrived at the conclusion, that 'talaq-e-biddat', is a 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 examined whether the praC!ice satisfies the
constraints proviqed for unc!_er A11icle 25 of the Constitution, and have
arrived at the c'onclusion, that it does not breach any of them. We have .B
. also come to the conclusion, that the practice being a component of ·
'personal law', has the protection of Artiple 25 of the Constitution.
193. Religion is a matteroffaith, and not oflogic. lt is riot opento
a court to accept an egalitarian approach, over a practice which
constitutes an integral part of religion. The Constitution allows the C
followers of every religion, to followtheir beliefs and religious traditions.
The Constitution assures believers ofall faiths, that their way of life; is.
guaranteed, and would not be subjected to any challenge, even though
they may-seem to others (~and even rationalists,-pract!cing the same
faith) unacceptable, in today's world and age. The Constitution extends
this guarantee, because faith constitutes the religious consciousness, of D
the followers. It is this religious consciousness, which binds believers
into separate entities. The Constitution endevours to protect and preserve,·
the beliefs of each of the separate entities, under Article 25.
194. Despite the views expressed by those who challenged the
practice of 't,alaq-e-biddat', being able to demonstrate that the practice E
transcends the barriers of constitutional mora!ity (emerging from different
provisions of the Constitution), we have found ourselves unable to
persuade ourselves, from reaching out in support of the petitioners
concerns. We cannot accept the petitioners' claim, because the challenge
raised is in respect of an issue of 'personal Jaw' which has constitutional
protection. F

195. In continuation of the position expressed above, we may .
I acknowledge, that most of the prayers made to the Com1 (-at least on
..j ' first blush) were persuasive enough, to solicit acceptance. Keeping in
mind, that this opportunity had presented itse1t: so to say, to assuage the
cause of Muslim women, it was felt, that the opportunity·shouldnot be G
· lost. We are however satisfied that, that would not be the rightful course·
to tread. We were obliged to keep reminding ourselves, of the wisdoms
of the framers of the Constitution, who placed matters of faith in Part III
"Of the Cgnstitution. Therefo're, any endeavour to proceed on issues
H
1078 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A canvassed before us would, tantamount to overlooking the clear letter of
law. We cannot nullify and declare as unacceptable in law, what the
Constitution decrees us, not only to protect, but also to enforce. The
authority to safeguard and compel compliance, is vested under a special
jurisdiction in constitutional Courts (-under Article 32, with the Supreme
Court; and under Article 226, with the High Courts). Accepting the
B
petitioners prayers, would be in clear transgression of the constitutional
mandate contained in Article 25.
, 196. Such a call of conscience, as the petitioners desire us to
accept, may well have a cascading effect. We say so, because the
contention of the learned Attorney General was, that 'talaq-e-ahsan'
c and 'talaq-e-hasan' were also liable to be declared unconstitutional, for
the same reasons as have been expressed with reference to 'talaq-e-
biddat' (-for details, refer to paragraph 77 above). According to the
learned Attorney General, the said forms oftalaq also suffered from the
same infirmities as 'talaq-e-biddat'. The practices of'polygamy' and
D 'halala' amongst Muslims are already under challenge before us. It is
not difficult to comprehend, what kind of challenges would be raised by
rationalists, assailing practices of different faiths on diverse grounds,
based on all kinds of enlightened sensibilities. We have to be guarded,
lest we find our conscience traversing into every nook and corner of
religious practices, and 'personal law'. Can a court, based on a righteous
E endeavour, declare that a matter of faith, be replaced-or be completely
done away with. In the instant case, both prayers have been made.
Replacement has been sought by reading the three pronouncements in
'talaq-e-biddat', as one. Alternatively, replacement has been sought by
reading into 'talaq-e-biddat', measures of arbitration and conciliation,
F described in the Quran and the 'hadiths'. The prayer is also for setting
aside the practice, by holding it to be unconstitutional. The wisdom
emerging from judgments rendered by this Court is unambiguous, namely,
that while examining issues falling in the realm of religious practices or
'per5onal law', it is not for a court to make a choice of something which
it considers as forward looking or non-fundamentalist. It is not for a
G court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive
or regressive. Religion and 'personal law', must be perceived, as it is
accepted, by the followers of the faith. And not, how another would like
it to be (-including self-proclaimed rationalists, of the same faith). Article
25 obliges all Constitutional Courts to protect 'personal laws' and not to
H find fault therewith. Interference in matters of 'personal law' is clearly
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1079
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
. .

beyond judicial examination. The judiciary must therefore, always exercise ·A
absolute restraint, no matter how compelling and attractive the opportunity
to do societal good may seem. It is therefore, that this Court had the
occasion to observe, " ..... However !audible, .desirable and attractive
the result may seem ... an activist Court is not fully equipped to cope
with the intricacies of the legislative subject and can at best advise and B
focus attention on the State polity on the problem and shake it from its
slumber, goading it to awaken, march and reach the goal. For, in whatever
measure be the concern of this Court, it compulsively needs to apply,
motion, described in judicial parlance as self-restraint ....." 30
197. We have arrived at the conclusion, that the legal challenge C
raised at the behest of the petitioners must fail, on the judicial front. Be
that as it may, the question still remains, whether this is a fit case for us
to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142, " ... for doing complete
justice ... ",in the matter. The reason for us to probe the possibility of
exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142, arises only for one simple
reason, that all concerned are unequivocal, that besides being arbitrary D
the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' is gender discriminatory.
198. A perusal of the consideration recorded by us reveals, that
the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' has been done away with, by way of
legislation in a large number of egalitaiian States, with sizeable Muslim
population and even by theocratic Islamic States. Even the AIMPLB, E
the main contestant of the petitioners' prayers, whilst accepting the position
canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, assumed the position, that it was
not within the realm of judicial discretion, to set aside a matter of faith
and religion. We have accepted the position assumed by the AIMPLB.
It was however acknowledged even by the AIMPLB, that legislative
will, could salvage the situation. This asse11ion was based on a conjoint F
reading of Articles 25(2) and Article 44 of the Constitution, read with
entry 5 of the Concurrent List contained in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. There can be no doubt, and it is our definitive conclusion,
that the position can only be salvaged by way oflegislation. We understand,
that it .is not appropriate to tender advice to the legislature, to enact law G
on an issue. However, the position as it presents in the present case,
seems to be a little different. Herein, the views expressed by the rival
parties are not in contradiction. The Union oflndia has appeared before
us in support of the cause of the petitioners. The stance adopted by the
Union of India is sufficient for us to assume, that the Union of India
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A supports the petitioners' cause. Unfortunately, the Union seeks at our
hands, what tmly falls in its own. The main party that opposed the
petitoners' challenge, namely, the AIMPLB filed an affidavit before this
Coi.irt affirming the following position:
"1. 1am the Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Board will
B issue an advisory through its Website, Publications and Social
Media Platforms and thereby advise the persons who perform
'Nik:ah' (marriage) and request them to do the following:-
(a) At the time of performing 'Nikah' (marriage). the person
performing the 'Nikah' will advise the Bridegroom/Man that in
case of differences leading to Talag the Bridegroom/Man shall
c not pronounce three divorces in one sitting since it is an undesirable
practice in Shariat;
(b) That at the time ofoerforming 'Nikah' (Marriage), the person
performing the 'Nikah' will advise both the Bridegroom/Man
and the Bride/Woman to incorporate a condition in the
D 'Nikahnan1a' to exclude resorting to pronouncement of three
divorces by her husband in one sitting.
3. I say and submit that, in addition. the Board is placing on
record. that the Working Committee of the Board had earlier
already passed ce11ain resolutions in the meeting held on 1Slh &
E 16lh April. 2017 in relation to Divorce (Talag) in the Muslim
community. Thereby it was resolved to convey a code of
conduct/guidelines to be followed in the matters of divorce
particularly emphasizing to avoid pronouncement of three
divorces in one sitting. A copy of the resolution dated April 16,
2017 along with the relevant Translation of Resolution Nos. 2, 3,
F c 4 & 5 relating to Talaq (Divorce) is enclosed herewith for the
perusal of this Hon'ble CoUrt and marked as Annexw·e A-1 (Colly)
[Page Nos. 4 to 12] to the present Affidavit."
A perusal of the above affidavit reveals, that the AIMPLB has
undertaken to issue an advisory through its website, to advise those who
G enter into a matrimonial alliance, to agree in the 'nikah-nama', that their
marriage would not be dissolvable by 'talaq-e-biddat'. The AIMPLB
has sworn an.affidavit to pre~cribe guidelines, to be followed in matters
of divorce, emphasizing that 'talaq-e-biddat' be avoiqed. It would not
be incorrect to assume, that even the AIMPLB is on board, to assuage
H the petitioner's cause.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1081

199. In view of the position expressed above, we are sati,sfied, A
that 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'. We hope and expect, that the contemplated legislation will also B
take into consideration advances in Muslim 'personal law' - 'Shariat',
as have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by theocratic
Islamic States. When the British rulers in India provided succor to Muslims
by legislation, and when remedial measures have been adopted by the
Muslim world, we find no reason, for an independent India, to lag behind.
Measures have been adopted for other religious denominations (see at C
IX - Reforms to 'personal law' in India), even in Iudia, but not for the
Muslims. We would therefore implore the legislature, to bestow its
thoughtful consideration, to this issue of paramount importance. We
would also beseech different political parties to keep their individual
political gains apart, while considering the necessary measures requiring
D
legislation.
, 200. Till such time as legislation in the matter is co11sidered, we
are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing 'talaq-e-
biddat' as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant
injunction, shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six
.month~ . }_f the legislative process commences before the expiry of the
E
period of six months, and.a positive decision emerges towards redefining
'talaq-e-biddat' (three prono,uncements of 'talaq', at one and the same
time)~ as one, or alternatively, if it is decided that the practice of'talaq-
e-biddat' be done away with altogether, the injunction would continue,
till legislation is finally enacted. Failing which, the injunction shall cease F
to operate.
201. Disposed of in the above tetms.
Note: The emphases supplied in all the quotations in the instant judgment,
are ours.
G

R. F. NARIMAN, J. Having perused a copy of the learned Chief
Justice's judgment, I am in respectful disagreement with the same.
1. This matter has found its way to a Constitution Bench of this
Court because of certain newspaper article.s which a Division Bench of H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A this Court in Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36, adverted to, and
then stated:
"28. An important issue of gender discrimination which though
not directly involved in this appeal, has been raised by some of
the learned counsel for the parties which concerns rights of
B Muslim women. Discussions on gender discrimination led to this
issue also. It was pointed out that in spite of guarantee of the
Constitution, Muslim women are subjected to discrimination.
There is no safeguard against arbitrary divorce and second
marriage by her husband during cun-ency of the first marriage,
resulting in denial of dignity and security to her. Although the
c issue was raised before this Court in Ahmedabad Women Action
Group (AWAG) v. Union of India [Ahmedabad Women Action
Group (AWAG) v. Union o,fIndia, (1997) 3 SCC 573], this Court
did not go into the merits of the discrimination with the observation
that the issue involved State policy to be dealt with by the
D legislature. [This Court referred to the observations of Sahai, J.
in Sar/a Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 569 that a climate was required to be built for a uniform
civil code. Reference was also made to observations in Madhu
Kishwar v. State ofBihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125 to the effect that
the Court could at best advise and focus attention to the problem
E instead of playing an activist role.] It was observed that challenge
to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986 was pending before the Constitution Bench and there was
no reason to multiply proceedings on such an issue.
31. It was, thus, submitted that this aspect of the matter may be
F gone into by separately n;gistering the matter as public interest
litigation (PIL). We are of the view that the suggestion needs
consideration in view of the earlier decisions of this Court. The
issue has also been highlighted in recent articles appearing in the
press on this subject. [The Tribune dated 24-9-2015 "Muslim
Women's Quest for Equality" by Vandana Shukla and Sunday
G Express Magazine dated 4-10-2015 "In Her Court" by Dipti
Nagpaul D'Souza.]
32. For this purpose, a PIL be separately registered and put up
before the appropriate Bench as per orders ofHon'ble the Chief
Justice of India."
H (at pages 53 and 55)
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1083
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

Several writ petitions have thereafter been filed and are before us A
seeking in different forms the same relief - namely, that a Triple Talaq
at one go by a Muslim husband which severs the marital bond is bad in
constitutional law.
2. Wide ranging arguments have been made by various counsel
appearing for the parties. These have been referred to in great detail in B
the judgment of the learned Chief Justice. In essence, the petitioners,
supported by the Union oflndia, state that Triple Talaq is an anachronism
in today's day and age and, constitutionally speaking, is anathema. Gender
discrimination is put at the forefront of the ari,ri:unent, and it is stated that
even though Triple Talaq may be sanctioned by the Shariat law as
applicable to Sunni Muslims in India, it is violative of Muslim women's C
fundamental rights to be fow1d, more particularly, in Articles 14, 15( 1)
and 21 of the Constitution oflndia. Opposing this, counsel for the Muslim
Personal Board and others who supported them, tli.en relied heavily upon
·a Bombay High Com1 judgment, being State of Bombay v. Narasu
Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Born 84, for the proposition that personal laws 0
are beyond the pale of the fw1damental rights Chapter of the Constitution
and hence cannot be struck down by this Court. According to them, in
this view of the matter, this Court should fold its hands and send Muslim
women and other women's organisations back to the legislature, as
according to them, if Triple Talaq is to be removed as a measure of
social welfare and reform under Aiticle 25(2), the legislature alone should E
do so .. To this, the counter argument of the other side is that Muslim
personal laws are not being attacked as such. What is the subject matter
of attack in these matters is a statute, namely, the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the "1937
Act"). According to them, Triple Talaq is specifically sanctioned by F
statutory law vide Section 2 of the 1937 Act and what is sought for is a
declaration that Section 2 of the 1937 Act is constitutionally invalid to the
aforesaid extent. To this, the Muslim Personal Board states that Section
2 is not in order to apply the Muslim law ofTriple Talaq, but is primarily
intended to do away with custom or usage to the contrary, as the non-
obstante clause in Section 2 indicates. Therefore, according to them, G
the Muslim personal law of Triple Talaq operates of its own force and
cannot be included in A1iicle I 3( 1) as "laws in force" as has been held in
Narasu Appa (supra).
3. The question, therefore, posed before this Court is finally in a
very narrow compass. Triple Talaq alone is the subject matter of 11
1084 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9. S.C.R.

A challenge - other forms ofTalaq are not. The neat question that arises
before this Court is, therefore, whether the 1937 Act can be said to
recognize and enforce Triple Talaq as a rnle of!aw to be followed by the
Courts in India and if not whether Narasu Appa (supra) which states
that personal laws are outside Article 13( I) of the Constitution is colTect
in law. ·
B
4. Inasmuch as the Muslims in India are divided into two main
sects, namely Sunnis and Shias, and this case pertains only to Sunnis as
Shias do not recognize Triple Talaq, it is important to begin at the very
beginning, · ·

c 5. In a most illuminating introduction to Mulla's Principles of
Mahomedan Law ( 16'h Ed.) (1968), Justice Hidayatullah, after speaking
about Prophet Mahomed, has this to say;
"The Prophet had established himself as the supreme overlord
and the supreme preceptor. Arabia was steeped in ignorance
D and barbarism, superstition and vice. female infanticide, drinking,
lechery and other vices were rampant.
However, the Prophet did not nominate a successor. His death
was announced by Abu Bakr and immediate action was taken to
hold an election. As it happened, the Chiefs of the tribe of Banu
E Khazraj were holding a meeting to elect a Chief and the
Companions went to the place. This meeting elected Abu Bakr
as the successor. The next day Abu Bakr ascended the pulpit
and
'
everyone took
. an oath of allegiance (Bai 'at).
This election led to the great schism between the Sunnis and
F
Shias. The Koreish tribe was divided into Ommayads and
Hashimites. The Hashimites were named after Hashim the great
grand-father of the Prophet. There was bitter enmity between
the Ommayads and the Hashimites. The Hashimites favoured
the succession of Ali and claimed that he ought to have been
chosen because of appointment by the Prophet and propinquity
G to him. The election in fact took place when the household of the
Prophet (including Ali) was engaged in the obsequies. This
offended the Hashimites. It may, .however, be said that Ali,
regardless of his own claims, immediately swore allegiance to
Abu Bakr. Ali was not set up when the second and third elections
of Omar and Osman took place, but he never went againsf these
H
\

\'
;

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1085
\

[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

decisions and accepted the new Caliph each time and gave him A"
unstinted support.
Abu Bakr was sixty year's old and was Caliph only for two years
(d. 634A.D.). Even when he was Caliph, the power behind him
was Omar lbnul Khattab. It is said that Abu Bakr named Omar
as his successor. Even if this be not true, it is obvious that the · B
election was a mere formality. Omar was assassinated after ten
years.as Caliph (644 A.D:). Osman was elected as the third',
Caliph. Tradition is that Omar had formed an inner panel of
electors (six in number), but this is discountenanced by some
. leading historians. Later this tradition was used byJhe Abbasids
_to form an inner conchwe for their elections. This special election
c
used to be accepted by the people at a general, but somewhat
formal, election. Osman was Caliph for 12 years and was
·assassinated (656 A.D.). Ali was at last elected as the fourth
.Caliph. The election of the first four Caliphs; who are known as
Khulfai-i-Rashidin (rightly-guided Caliphs) was real, although D
it may be said that each time the choice was such as to leave no
room for opposition. Ali was Caliph for five years. He was , .
killed in battle in 661 A.D. Ali's son Hasan resigned in favour of
'' Muavia the founder of the Ommayad dynasty. Hasan was,
however, murdered. The partisans of Ali persuaded Hussain,
the second son of Ali, to revolt against Mauvia's son Yezid, but E
at Kerbala, Husain died fighting after suffering great privations.
The rift between the Sunnis and the Shias (Shiat-i-Ali party of
Ali) became very great .thereafter."
6. lt is in this historical setting that it is necessary to advert to the .
. various sub-sects of the Sunnis. Four major sub-sects are broadly F
recognized schools of Sunni law. They .are the. Hanafi school, Mal.iki
school, Shafi 'i school and Hanbali school. The overwhelming majority
of Sunnis in India follow the Hanafi school oflaw. Mulla in Principles of
i
Mahomedan Law (20'" Ed.), pg. xix to .xxi, has this to say about the
Hanafi school: G
"This is the most famous of the four schools ofHanafi law. This
school 'Yas founded by AbuHanifa (699-767 A.D.). The school
is also known as "Kufa School". Although taught by the great
Imam Jafar-as-Sadik, the fol:IIlder of the Shia School, Abu Hanifa
was, also a pupil of Abu Abdullah ibn-ul-Mubarak and Hamid I-I
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A bin-Sulaiman and this may account for his founding a separate
school. This school was favoured by the Abbasid Caliphs and
its doctrines spread far and wide. Abu Hanifa earned the
appellation "The Great Imam". The school was fortunate in
possessing, besides Abu Hanifa, his two more celebrated pupils,
Abu Yusuf (who became the Chief Kazi at Baghdad) and Imam
B
MuhammadAsh-Shaybani, a prolific writer, who has left behind
a number of books on jurisprudence. The founder of the school
himself left very little written work. The home of this school
was Iraq but it shares this territory with other schools although
there is a fair representation. The Ottoman Turks and the Seljuk
c Turks were Hanafis. The doctrines of this school spread to
Syria, Afghanistan, Turkish Central Asia and India. Other names
connected with the Kufa School are Ibn Abi Layla and Safyan
Thawri. Books on the doctrines are al-Hidaay of Marghinani
(translated by Hamilton), Radd-al-Mukhtar and Durr-ul-
Mukhtar of lbn Abidin and al-Mukhtasar of Kuduri. The
D
Fatawa-i-Alamgiri collected in Aurangzeb's time contain the
doctrines of this school with other material."
7. Needless to add, the Hanafi school has supported the practice
of Triple Talaq amongst the Stmni Muslims in India for many centuries.
E 8. Marriage in Islam is a contract, and like other contracts, may
under certain circumstances, be terminated. There is something
astonishingly modern about this - no public declaration is a condition
precedent to the validity of a Muslim marriage nor is any religious
ceremony deemed absolutely essential, though they are usually carried
out. Apparently, before the time of Prophet Mahomcd, the pagan Arab
F was absolutely free to repudiate his wife on a mere whim, but after the
advent oflslam, divorce was permitted to a man if his wife by her indocility
or bad character renders marital life impossible. In the absence of good
reason, no man can justify a divorce for he then draws upon himself the
curse of God. Indeed, Prophet Mahomed had declared divorce to be
G the most disliked oflawful things in the sight of God. The reason for this
is not far to seek. Divorce breaks the marital tie which is fundamental
to family life in Islam. Not only does it disrupt the marital tie between
man and woman, but it has severe psychological and other repercussions
on the children from such marriage.

H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1087
[R. F. NARlMAN, J.]

9. This then leads us to the forms of divorce recognized in Islamic A
Law. Mulla (supra), at pages 393-395, puts it thus:
"S.311. Different modes of talak. - A talak may be effected
in any of the following ways:-
(1) Talak ahsan. - This consists of a single pronouncement of
divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) B
followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of
iddat.
When the marriage has not been.consummated, a talak in
the ahsan form may be pronounced even if the wife is in her
(~
menstruation. -
Where the wife has passed the age of periods of menstrnation
the requirement of a declaration during a tuhr is inapplicable;
furthermore, this requirement only applies to a oral divorce and
not a divorce in writing._
D
TalakAhsan is based on the following verses of Holy Quran:
'\ :·and the divorced woman should keep themselves in waiting for
I
three courses." (11:228),
j
i "And those of your woman who despair of menstruation, if
you have a doubt, their prescribed time is three months, and of E
those too, who have not had their courses." (LXV: 4).
(2) Talak hasan- This consists of three pronouncements made
during successive tuhrs, 'no intercourse taking place during any
of the three tuhrs.
The first pronouncement should be made during a tuhr, the F
second during the next tu hr, and the third during the succeeding
tuh1:
TalakHasan is based on the following Quranic injunctions:
"Divorce may be pronounced twice, then keep them in good
fellowship or let (them) go kindness." (II: 229). G
"So if he (the husband) divorces her (third time) she shall not be
lawful to him afterward until she marries another person." (II:
230).

H
I

1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A · (3) Talak-ul-bidaat or talak-i-badai.-- This consists of -
(i) Three pronouncements made during a single tuhr either
ih one sentence, e.g., "I divorce thee thrice," - or in
separate sentences e.g., "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I
divorce thee", or
B (ii) a single pronouncement made during a tuhr clearly
indicating an intention irrevocably to dissolve the
marriage, e.g., "I divorce thee irrevocably."

c Talak-us-sunnat and talak-ul-biddat
The Hanafis recognized two kinds of talak, namely, (1) talak-
us-sunnat, that is, talak according to the rules laid down in the
sunnat (traditions) of the Prophet; and (2) talak-ul-biddat. that
is. new or irregular talak. Talak-ul-biddat was introduced by
D the. Omeyyade monar~hs in the second century of the
Mahomedan era. Talak-ul~sunnat is of two kinds, namely, (1)
ahsari, that is, most proper, and (2) hasan, that is, proper. The
ta/ak-ul-biddat or heretical divorce is good in law. though bad
in theology and it is the most common and prevalent mode of
divorce in this country, including Oudh. In the case of talak
E ahsan and ta/ak hasan, 'the husband has an opportunity of
reconsidering his decision, for the talak in both these cases does
not become absolute until a certain period has elapsed (S.312),
and the husband has the option to revoke it before then. But the
· talak-ul-biddat Becomes irrevocable immediately it is
F
pronounced (S.312). The essential feature of a talak-ul-biddat
is its irrevocability. One of tests of irrevocability is the repetition
three times of the formula of divorce within one tuhr. But the
triple rept:tition is not a necessary condition of talak-ul-biddat,
and the h;1tentiohto render a talak irrevocable may be expressed
even by as ingle declaration. Thus ifa man says "I have divorced
G you.by a talak-ul-bain (irrevocable divorce)", the talak is talak-
1:11-biddat or talak-i-badai and it will take effect immediately it
is pronoti.nced, though it may be pronounced but once. Here the
use of the expression "bain" (irrevocable) manifests of itself
the intention to effect an irrevocable divorce."
H [Emphasis Supplied]
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1089
, [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

10. Another noted author, A.A.A. Fyzee, in his book "Outlines of A
Muhainmadan Law" (5'h Ed.), at pages 120-122, puts it thus:
"The pronouncement of talaq may be· either revocable or
irrevocable. As the Prophet oflslam did not favour the institUtion
of talaq, the revocable forms of talaq are considered as the
'approved' and the irrevocable forms are treated as the B
'disapproved' forms. A revocable pronouncement of divorce
gives a locus poenitentiae to the man; but an irrevocable
pronouncement leads to an undesirable result without a chance
to reconsider the question. If this principle is kept in mind the
terminology is easily understood. The forms of talaq may.be C
classified as follows: '
(a) talaq al-sunna (i.e., in conformity with the_ dictates of the
Prophet) -
(i) ahsan (the most approved), (ii) hasan (approved).
(b) talaq al-bid'a (i.e., of innovation; therefore not approved)- D
(i) three declarations (the so-called triple divorce) at one time,
(ii) one irrevocable declaration (generally in writing).
The talaq al-sunna, most approved form consists of one single
pronouncement in a period of tuhr (purity, i.e., when the woman
is free from her menstrual courses), followed by abstinence from E
~exual intercourse during that period of sexual purity (tuhr) as
well as during the whole of the iddat. If any such intercourse
takes place during the periods mentioned, the divorce is void and
of no effect in Ithna Ashari and Fatimi laws. It is this mode or
procedure which seems to have been approved by the Prophet F
at the beginning of his ministry and is consequently regarded as ,
the regular or proper and orthodox form of divorce.
\}'.here the parties have been away from each other for a long
time, or where the wife is old and beyond the age of menstrnation,
the condition of tuhr is unnecessary. ,_
G
A pronouncement made in the ashan form is revocable during
iddat. This period is three months from the date of the
declaration or, if the woman is pregnant, until delivery. The
husband may revoke the divor-ce at any time during the iddat.
Such revocation may be by express words or by conduct.
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Resumption of conjugal intercourse is a clear case of revocation.
For instance, H pronounces a single revocable talaq against his
wife and then says 'l have retained thee' or cohabits with her,
the divorce is revoked under Hanafi as well as lthna Ashari law.
After the expiration of the iddat the divorce becomes irrevocable.
B A Muslim wife after divorce is entitled to maintenance during
the iddat, and so also her child in certain circumstances.
The hasan form of talaq, also an approved fo1m but less approved
than the first (ahsan), ·consists of three successive
pronouncements during three consecutive periods of purity
c (tuhr). Each of these pronouncements should have b1:en made
at a time when no intercourse has taken place during that
particular period of purity.
The hasan form of talaq requires some explanation and a
concrete illustration should suffice. The husband (H) pronounces
D talaq on his wife (W) for the first time during a period when W
is free from her menstrual courses. The husband and wife had
not come together during this period of purity. This is the first
talaq. H resumes cohabitation or revokes this first talaq in this
period of purity. Thereafter in the following period of purity, at a
time when no intercourse has taken place, H pronounces the
E second talaq. This talaq is again revoked by express words or
by conduct and the third period of purity is entered into. In this
period, while no intercourse having taken place, H for the third
time pronounces the formula of divorce. This third
pronouncement operates in law as a final and irrevocable
F dissolution of the ma1ital tie. The marriage is dissolved; sexual
intercourse becomes unlawful; iddat becomes incumbent;
remarriage between the parties becomes impossible unless W
lawfully maJTies another husband, and that other husband lawfully
divorces her after the marriage has been actually consummated.

G
Thus it is clear that in these two forms there is a chance for the
parties to be reconciled by the intervention of friends or othe1wise.
They are, therefore, the 'approved' forms and are recognized
both by Sunni and Shia laws. The Ithna Ashari and the Fatimi
schools, however, do not recognize the remaining two forms and
thus preserve the ancient conventions of the times of the Law-
H giver.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1091
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

The first, or ahsan, form is 'most approved' because the husband A
behaves in a gentlemanly manner and does not treat the wife as
a chattel. The second is a form in which the Prophet tried to put
an end to a barbarous pre-Islamic practice. This practice was
to divorce a wife.and take her back several times in order to ill-
treat her. The Prophet, by the rnle of the irrevocability of the B
third pronouncement, indicated clearly that such a practice could
not be continued indefinitely. Thus if a husband really wished to
take the wifoback he should do so; if not, the third pronotmcement
after two reconciliations would operate as a final bar. These
rules of law follow the spirit of the Quranic injtmction: 'when
they have reached their term take them back in kindness or part C
from them in kindness'.
A disapproved form of divorce is talaq by triple declarations in
which three pronouncements are made in a single tu hr. either in
one sentence e.g. 'l divorce thee triply or thrice' or in three
sentences '1 divorce thee, I divorce thee, 1divorce thee.' Such a D
talaq is lawful, although sinful, in Hanafi law; but in lthna Ashari
and the Fatimi laws it is not permissible. This is called talaq al-
ba 'in, irrevocable divorce.
Another form of the disapproved divorce is a single, irrevocable
pronouncement made either during the period of tuhr or even E
otherwise. This form is also called talaq al-ba 'in and may be
given in writing. Such a 'bill of divorcement' comes into operation
immediately and severs the marital tie. This form is not
recognized by the Ithna Ashari or the Fatimi schools."
[Emphasis Supplied] F
11. It is at this stage that the 1937 Act needs consideration. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act are as follows:
"For several years past it has been the cherished desire of the
Muslims of British India that Customary Law should in no case
take the place of Muslim Personal Law. The matter has been G
repeatedly agitated in the press as well as on the platform. The
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, the greatest Moslem religious body has
supported the demand and invited the attention of all concerned
to the urgent necessity of introducing a measure to this effect.
I-1
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Customary Law is a misnomer in as much as it has not any
sound basis to stand upon and is very much liable to frequent
changes and cannot be expected to attain at any time in the
future that certainty and definiteness which must be the
characteristic of all laws. The status of Muslim women under
the so-called Customary Law is simply disgraceful. All the Muslim
B
Women Organisations have therefore condemned the Customary
Law as it adversely affects their rights. They demand that the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) should be made applicable to
them. The introduction ofMuslim Personal Law will automatically
raise them to the position to which they are naurally entitled. In
c addition to this present measure, if enacted, would have very
salutary effect on society because it would ensure certainty and.
definiteness in the mutual rights l!nd obligations of the public.
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) exists in the form of a veritable
code and is too well known to admit of any doubt or to entail any
great labour in the shape of research, which is the chief feature
D
of Customary Law."
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. It is a short Act consisting of 6 ·sections. We are directly
concerned in these cases with Section 2. Section 2 of the 1937 Act
E states:
"2. Application of Personal law to Muslims. -
Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all
questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding
intestate succession, special property of females, including
F personal properly inherited or obtained under contract or gift or
any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of.
marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, Tian, klntla and mubaraat,
maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust
properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable
institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of
G decision in cases where the pa11ies are Muslims shall be the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."
13. A word as to the meaning of the expression "Shariat". A.A.A.
Fyzee (supra), at pages 9-11, describes "Shariat" as follows:

H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF JNDIA AND OTHERS 1093
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

"Coming to law proper, it is 1'ecessary to remember that there · A
are two different conceptions of law. Law may be considered
. to be of divine origin, as .is the case with the Hindu law and the
Islamic law, .or it may be conceived as man-made. The latter
· ·conception is the guiding principle of all modern legislation; it is,
as Ostrorog has pointed out, the Greek, Roman, Celtic or B
Germanic notion of law~ We may be compelled to· act in
' accordance with certain principles because God desires us to do
so, or in the alternative because the King or the Assembly of
wise men or the leader of the community or social custom demand
· it of us, for the good of tlie people in general. In the case of
Hindu law, it is based first on the Vedas or Sruti (that which is C
heard); secondly on the Smriti (that which is remembered by the
sages or rishis). Although the effect of custom is undoubtedly
· great yet dharma, as defined by Hindu lawyers, implies a course
of conduct which is approved by God.
Now, what is the Islamic notion of law? In the words of Justice D
Mahmood, 'It is to be remembered that Hindu and Muhammadan
law are so intimately connected with religion that they cannot
readily be dissevered from it'. There is in Islam a doctrine of
'certitude' (ilm al-yaqin) in the matter of Good and.Evil. We in
our weakness cannot understand what Good and Evil are unless
we are guided i11 the matter by an inspired Prophet. Good al,!d E
· Evil'."" husn (beauty) and qubh (ugliness) - are to be taken in
the ethical acceptation of the tenns. What is morally beautiful
that must be done; and what is morally ugly must not be done.
That is law or Shariat and nothing else can _be law. But what is
absolutely and indubitably beautiful, and what is absolutely and· F
. indubitably ugly? These are the important legal questions; and
who can answer them? Certainly not man, say the Muslim legists.
We have the Qur'an which is the very word of God.
Supplementary to it we have Hadith which are Traditions of the
Prophet- the records of his actions and his sayings - from which
- we must derive help and inspiration in arriving at legal decisions. G
If there is nothing either in the Qur'an or in the Hadith to answer
the particular question which is before us, we have to follow the
dictates of secular reason in accordance with certain definite
principles. These principles constitute the basis of sacred law or
_H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Shariat as the Muslim doctors understand it. And it is these
fundamental juristic notions which we must t1y to study and
analyse before we approach the study of the Islamic civil law as
a whole, or even that small part of it which in India is known as
•Muslim law.
B · Modern jurists emphasize the importance oflaw for understanding
the character and ethos of a people. Law, says a modem jurist,
'streams from the soul of a people like national poetry, it is as
holy as the national religion, it grows and spreads like language;
religious, ethical, and poetical elements all contribute to its vital
force'; it is 'the distilled essence of the civilization of a people';
c it reflects the people's soul more clearly than any other organism.
This is true of Islam more than of any other faith. The Shari 'at
is the central core of Islam; no understanding of its civilization,
its social history or its political system, is possible without a
knowledgt'. and appreciation of its legal system.
•
D Shariat (lit., the road to the watering place, the path to be
followed) as a technical term means the Canon law of Islam, the
totality of Allah's commandments. Each one of such
• commandments is called hukm (pl. ah/mm). The law of Allah
and its inner meaning is not easy to grasp; and Shariat embraces
E all human actions. For this reason it is not 'law' in the modem
sense; it contains an infallible guide to ethics. It is fundamentally
a Doctrine of Duties, a code of obligations. Legal considerations
and individual rights have a secondaiy place in it; above all thi.:
tendency towards a religious evaluation ofall the affairs of life is
supreme.
F
According to the Shariat religious injunctions are of five kinds,
al-ahkam al-khamsah. Those strictly enjoined are farz, and
those strictly forbidden are haram. Between them we have two
middle categories, namely, things which you are advised to do
(mandub), and things which you are advised to refrain from
G {makruh) and finally there are things about which religion is
indifferent (ja 'iz). The daily prayers, five in number, arefarz;
wine is haram; the addition prayers like those on the Eid are
mandub; certain kinds of fish are makruh; and there are
thousands of ja 'iz things such as travelling by air. Thus the
Shariat is totalitarian; all human activity is embraced in its
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF-'INDIA AND OTHERS 1095
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

sovereign domain. This fivefold division must be carefully noted; A
forunless this is done it is impossible to understand the distinction
between that which is only morally enjoined and that which is
legally enforced. Obviously, moral obligation is quite a different
thing from legal necessity and if in law these distinctio11s are not
kept in mind error and confusion are the inevitable result."
B
14. it can be seen that the 1937 Act is a pre-constitutional legislative
measure which would fall directly withinArticleJ 3( 1) of the Constitution
of India, which reads as under:
"Article 13 - Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of
the fundamental rights ~(I) All laws in force in the territory~ C
India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution,
in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this part,
shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) xxx xxx XXx
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,- D
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usage having in the territ01y of India the
force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature
E
or other competent authority in the territory oflndia before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof rnay not
be then in operation either at all or in particular areas."
·is. However, learned counsel for the Muslim Personal Board as
well as other counsel supporting their stand have argued that, read in F
light of the Objects and Reasons, the 1937 Act was not meant to enforce
Muslim personal law, which was enforceable by itself through the Courts
in India. The 1937 Act was only meant, as the non-obstante clause in
Section 2 indicates, to do away with custom or usage which' is contrary
to.Muslim personal law. · G
16. We are afraid that such a constricted reading of the statute
would be impermissible in law. True, the Objects and Reasons ofa statute
· throw light on the background in which the statute was enacted, but it is
difficult to read the non-obstante clause of Section 2 as governing the
enacting part of the Section, or otherwise it will become a case of the H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A tail wagging the dog. A similar attempt was made many years ago and
rejected in Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, 1953 SCR I.
This Court was concerned with Section 2 of the Supreme Court.
Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951. Section 2 of the said
Act read as follows:
B "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Bar Councils
Act, 1926, or in any other law regulating the conditions subject
to which a person not entered in the roll of Advocates of a High
Court may, be permitted to practice in that High Court every
Advocate of the Supreme Court shall be entitled as of right to
practice in any High Court whether or not he is an Advocate of
c that High Court:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle
any person, merely by reason of his being an Advocate of the
Supreme Court, to practice in any High Court of which he was
at any time a judge, if he had given an undertaking not to practice
D therein after ceasing to hold office as such judge."
17. The argument made before this Court was that the non-
obstante clause furnishes the key to the proper interpretation of the scope
of the Section and the enacting clause must, therefore, be constrned as
conferring only a right co-extensive with the disability removed by the
E opening clause. This argument was rejected by this Court as follows:
"23. Turning now to the non obstante clause in section 2 of the
new Act, which appears to have furnished the whole basis for
· the reasoning of the Court below-and the argument before us
closely followed that reasoning - we find the learned Judges
F begin by inquiring what are the provisions which that clause seeks
to supersede and then place upon the enacting clause such
construction as would make the right conferred by it co-extensive
with the disability imposed by the superseded provisions. "The
meaning of the section will become clearer'', they observe, "if
we examine a little more closely what the section in fact
G
supersedes or repeals .....The disability which the section removes
and the right which it confers are co-extensive." This is not, in
our judgment, a correct approach to the construction of section
2. It should first be ascertained what the enacting part of the
section provides on a fair construction of the words used
H
SHAYARA BANO v.-UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1097
(R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

accor~ing to their natural and ordinary meaning, and the non A
obstante clause is to be understood as. operating to set aside as
no longer valid anything contained in relevant existing laws which
is incon~istent with the new enactment."
(at pages 21-22)
This view was followed in A.V. Fernandez v. State of .Kerala, B
1957 SCR 837 at 850. .
18. It is, therefore, clear that all forms of Talaq recognized and
enforced by Muslim personal law are recognized and enforced by the
193 7 Act. This would necessarily include Triple Talaq when .it comes to
the Muslim personal law applicable to Sunnis in India. Therefore, it is C
very difficult to accept the argu~ent on behalf of the Muslim Personal
Board.that Section 2 does not recognize or enforce Triple Talaq. It clearly
and obviously does both, because the Section makes Triple Talaq "the
rnle of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims".
19. As we have concluded that the 193 7 Act is a: law made by the D
legislature before the Constitution came into force, it would fall squarely
within the expression '~Jaws in force" mArticle 13(3)(b)·and would be
hit by Article 13(1) if found to be inconsistent with the· provisions of Patt
III of the Constitution, to the extent of such inconsistency.
20. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the recognition of E
Triple Talaq as a legal form.of divorce in India; as applicable to Sunni
Muslims. In an early Bombay case, Sarabai v. Rabiabai, (1906) ILR
30 Bom 53 7, Bachelor, J. referred to Triple Talaq and said that "it is
good in law though bad in theology". In a Privy Council decision in 1932,
5 years before the 1937 Act, namely Rashid Ahmad v. Anha Khatun, F
(1931-32) 59 IA 21: AIR 1932 PC 25, the Privy Council was squarely
called upon to adjudicate upon a Triple Talaq. Lord Thankerton speaking
for the Privy Council put it thus:
"There is nothing in the case to suggest that the parties are not
Sunni Mahomedans governed by the ordinary Hanafi Jaw, and, G
in the opinion of their Lordships, the law of divorce applicable in
such a case is correctly stated by Sir R.K Wilson, in his Digest
ofAngfo-Muhammadan Law, 5th ed., at p. 136, as follows: "The
divorce called talak may be either irrevocable (bain) or.
revocable (raja). A talak bain, while it always operates as an
immediate and complete dissolution of the marriage bond, differs H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A as to one of its ulterior effects according to the form in which it
is pronounced. A talak bain may be effected by words
addressed to the wife clearly indicating an intention to dissolve
the marriage, either:~(a) Once, followed by abstinence from
sexual intercourse, for the period called the iddat; or (b) Three
times during successive intervals of purity, i.e, between successive
B
menstrnations, no intercourse taking place during any of the three
intervals; or (c) Three times at shorter intervals, or even in
immediate succession; or (d') Once, by words showing a clear
intention that the divorce shall immediately became irrevocable .
. The first-named of the above methods is called ahsan (best),
c the second hasan (good), the third and fourth are said to
be bidaat (sinful), but are, nevertheless, regarded by Sunni
lawyers as legally valid."
(at page 26)
The Privy Council went on to state:
D
"Their Lordships are of opinion that the pronouncement of the
triple talak by Ghiyas-ud-<lin constituted an immediately effective
divorce, and, while they are satisfied that the High Court were
not justified in such a conclusion on the evidence in the present
case, they are of opinion that the validity and effectiveness of
E the divorce would not be affected by Ghiyas-ud-.din's mental
intention that it should not be a genuine divorce, as such a view
is contrary to all authority. A talak actually pronounced under
compulsion or in jest is valid and effective: Baillie's Digest, 2nd
ed., p. 208; Ameer Ali's Mohammedan Law, 3rd ed., voL ii., p.
F 518; Hamilton's Hedaya, vol. i., p. 211."
(at page 27)
21. It is thus clear that it is this view of the law which the 1937
Act both recognizes and enforces so as to come within the purview of ·
Article 13( l) of the Constitution.
G
22. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to decide
whether the judgment in Narasu Appa (supra) is good law. However,
in a suitable case, it may be necessary to have a re-look at this judgment
in that the definition of "law" and "laws in force" are both inclusive
definitions, and that at least one part of the judgment of P.B.
H Gajendragadkar, J., (para 26), in which the learned Judge opines that the
".

SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF .INDIA AND OTHERS 1099
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.] .

expression "law" cannot be read into the expression "laws in force" in A
Article 13(3) is itself no longer good law- See Sant Ram & Ors. v.
Labh Singh & Ors., (1964) 7 SCR 756.
23. It has been argued somewhat faintly that Triple Talaq would
be an essential part of the Islamic faith and would, therefore, be protected
by Article 25 of the Constitution oflndia. Article 25 reads as follows: B
"Article 25 • Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion.-
( l) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and c
propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing
law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or D
other secular activity which may be associated with religious
practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open
of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes
and sections of Hindus.
E
Explanation 1.-The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be
deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation IL-In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference
to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons
professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference F
to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly."
24. "Religion" has been given the widest possible meaning by this
Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shinir Mutt, 1954 SCR
1005 at 1023-1024. In this country, therefore, atheism would also form G
part of "religion". But one impo1iant caveat has been entered by this
Court, namely, that only what is an essential religious practice is protected
under Article 25. A few decisions have laid down what constitutes an
essential religious practice. Thus, in Javed v. State of Haryana, 2003
(8) SCC 369, this Court stated as under:
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "60. Looked at from any angle, the challenge to the constitutional
validity of Section l 75(l)(q) and Section 177(1) must fail. The
right to contest an election for any office in Panchayat is neither
fundamental nor a common law right. It is the creature of a
statute and is obviously subject to qualifications and
disqualifications enacted by legislation. It may be permissible for
B
Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for
anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community
or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion
in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy
or polygamy or to have children more than one. What is permitted
c or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice
or a positive tenet of a religion. A practice does not acquire the
sanction ofreligion simply because it is permitted. Assuming the
practice of having more wives than one or procreating more
children than one is a practice followed by any community or
group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by
D
legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or
by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the
impugned legislation clearly does."
(at page 394)
E And in Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda
Avadhuta, 2004 (12) SCC 770, it was stated as under:
"9. The protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or belief but
extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore,
F contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and
modes of worship which are essential or integral part ofreligion.
What constitutes an integral or essential part ofreligion has to
be determined with reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets,
historical background, etc. of the given religion. (See generally
the Constitution Bench decisions in Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri
G Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954
SC 282 : 1954 SCR 1005], Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin
Saheb v. State of Bombay [AIR 1962 SC 853 : 1962 Supp (2)
SCR 496] and Seshammal v. State of T.N. [( 1972) 2 SCC 11 :
AIR 1972 SC 1586] regarding those aspects that are to be looked
H into so as to determine whether a part or practice is essential or
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND.OTHERS 1101
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

not.) What is meant by "an essential part or practices ofa religion" A
is now the matter for elucidation. Essential part of a religion
means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded. Essential
practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a
religious belief. It is upon the comerstone of essential parts or
practices that the superstructure of a religion is built, without B
which a religion will be no religion. Test to determine whether a
part ofpractice is essential to a religion is to find out whether the
nature of the religion will be changed without that pru.t or practice.
If the taking away of that part or practice ~ould result in a
fundamental change in the character of that religion O!)n its
belief, then such part could be treated as an ess~,ritial or intp{ral C
part. There cannot be additions or subtracti6ns to such part
because it is the very essence of that religioti and alterations will
change its fundamental chru.·acter. It is such permanent essential
parts which are protected by the Constitution. Nobody can say
that an essential part or practice of one's religion has changed D
from a particular date or by an event. Such alterable parts or
practices are definitely not the "core" of religion whereupon the .
belief is based and religion is founded upon. They could only be
treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential (sic essential}
· part or practices." .,,"-,
~-

(a:t pages'782-783) E
25. Applying the aforesaid tests, it is clear that Triple Talaq is only ·
a fom1 ofTalaq which is permissible in law, but at the same time, stated
to be sinful by the very Hanafi school which tolerates it. According to
Javed (supra), therefore, this would not form part of any essential
religious practice. Applying the test stated in Acharya
Jagdishwarananda (supra), it is equally clear that the fundamental nature
of the Islamic religion, as seen through an Indian.Sunni Muslim's eyes,
will not change without this practice. Indeed, Islam divides all human
action into five kinds, as has been stated by Hidayatullah,. J. in his
introduction to Mulla (supra). There it is stated: .,
"E. Degrees of obedience: Islam divides all actions ihto five
kinds which figure differently in the sight of God and in respect
of which His Commands are different. This plays an important
· part in the lives of Muslims.
H
1102 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.CR .

A (i) First degree: Fard. Whatever is commanded in the Koran,
Hadis or ijmaa must be obeyed.
Wajib. Perhaps a little less compulsory thanFardbut only slightly
less so.
(ii) Second degree: Masnun, Mandub and Mustahab: These
B are recommended actions.
(iii)Third degree: Jaiz or Mubah: These are permissible
actions as to which religion is indifferent.
(iv)Fourth degree: Makrnh: That which is reprobated as
c wiworthy.
(v) Fifth degree: Haram: That which is forbidden."
Obviously, Triple Talaq does not fall within the first degree, since
even assuming that it forms part of the Koran, Hadis or ~jmaa, it is not
something "commanded''. Equally Talaq itself is not a recommended
D action and, therefore, Triple Talaq will not fall within the second degree.
Triple Talaq at best falls within the third degree, but probably falls more
squarely within the fourth degree. It will be remembered that under the
third degree, Triple Talaq is a permissible action as to which religion is
indifferent. Within the fourth degree, it is reprobated as unworthy. We
A
E have already seen that though permissible in Hanafijurispmdence, yet, •,
that very jurisprudence castigates Triple Talaq as being sinful. It is clear, ,
therefore, that Triple Talaq forms no part of Article 25(1 ). This being .~
the case, the submission on behalf of the Muslim Personal Board that ".
the ball must be bounced back to the legislature does not at all arise in •
that Aiticle 25(2)(b) would only apply if a particular religious practice is '
F first covered under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
26. And this brings us to the question as to when petitions have
been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, is it permissible
for us to state that we will not decide an alleged breach of a fundamental
right, but will send the matter back to the legislature to remedy such a
G wrong.
27. ln Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., 1963
(Supp.) 1 SCR 885, this Court held:
"2. Article 32(1) provides that the right to move the Supreme
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1103
[R. F. 'NARTMAN, J.]

rights conferred by this. Part is guaranteed, and sub-aii. (4) lays A
down that this right shall not be suspended except as othe1wise
provided for by this Constitution. There is no doubt that the right
to move this Court conferred on the citizens of this country by
· Article 32 is itselfa guaranteed right and it holds the same place
of pride in the Constitution as do the other provisions i11 ri:;spect B
of the citizens fundamental rights. The fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part Ill which have been made justiciable, form
· the most outstanding and distinguishing feature of the Indian
Constitution. It is true that the said rights are not absolute and
they have to be adjusted in relation to the interests of the general
public. But the scheme of Article 19 illustrates, the difficult task C
of determining the propriety or the validity of adjustments made
either legislatively or by executive action between the fundamental
rights and the demands. of socio-economic welfare has been
ultimately left in charge of the High Courts and the Supreme
Court by the Constitution. It is in the light of this position that the
0
Constitution makers thought it advisable to treat the citizen's right
to move this Court for the enforcement of their fundamental
rights as being a fundamental right by itself. The fundamental
right to move this Court can, therefore, be appropriately described
as the corner-stone of the democratic edifice raised by the
Constitution. That is why it is natural that this Court should, in E
the words of Patanjali Sastri J., regard itself "as the protector
and guarantor of fundamental rights," and should declare that "it
cannot, consj§tently with the responsibility laid upon it, refuse to
ente1iain applications seeking protection against infringements
of such rights."· (Vide Ramesh Thappar v. State of
Madras [[ 1950] SCR 594 at 697]). In discharging the duties F
. assigned to it, this Court has to play the role "of a sentinel on
the qui vive" (Vide State of Madras v. V.C. Row [[1952] SCR
594 at 597]) and it must always regard it as its solemn, duty to
protect the said fundamental rights' zealously and vigilantly
(Vide Daryao v. State of U.P [[ 1962] 1 SCR 574 at p. 582])" G
28. We are heartened to note that in a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision the same thing has been said with respect to knocking at the
doors of the U.S. Supreme Court in order to vindicate a basic right. In
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 at 2605, decided on June 26,
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court put it thus: H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need
not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
The Nation's courts are open to injrn:ed individuals who come to
them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic
charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional
protection when he or she is harmed, even ifthe broader public
B
disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of
the Constitution "was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the
reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
pl'inciples to be applied by the comts." West Virginia Bd. ofEd.
c v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why"fundamental
rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections."
29. However, counsel for the Muslim Personal Board relied
heavily on this Court's decision in Ahmedabad Women Action Group
D v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 573. This judgment refers to several
earlier decisions to hold that the declarations sought for did not deserve
disposal on merits, which involve issues of State policy that courts ordinarily
do not have concern with. This Court, therefore, declined to entertain
writ petitions that asked for very sweeping reliefs which, interestingly
E enough, included a declaration ofvpidness as to "unilateral talaq". This
Court referred in detail to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
Narasu Appa (supra) in declining to review Muslim. personal Jaw.
However, when it came to the challenge of a statutory enactment, Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, this Court did not
wish to multiply proceedings in that behalf, as a challenge was pending
f before a Constitution Bench regarding the same.
30. Hard as we tried, it is difficult to discover any ratio in this
judgment, as one part of the judgment contradicts another pa11. If one
particular statutory enactment is already under challenge, there is no
reason why other similar enactments which were also challenged should
G not have been disposed of by this Court. Quite apart from the above, it
is a little difficult to appreciate such declination in the light of Prem
Chand Garg (supra). This judgment, therefore, to the extent that it is
contrary to at least two Constitution Bench decisions cannot possibly be
said to be good law.

H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1105
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

31. It is at this point that it is necessary to see whether a A
fundamental right has been violated by the 1937 Act insofar as it seeks
to enforce Triple Talaq as a rule of law in the Courts in India.
32. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality of
status and opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution_;
The Article naturally divides itself into two parts- ( 1) equality before the. B
law, and (2) the equal protection of the law. Judgments of this Court
have referred to the fact that the equality before law concept has been
derived from the law in the U.K., and the equal protection of the laws
has been borrowed from the 14'h Aqiendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America. In a revealing judgment, Subba Rao, J,, C
dissenting, in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14
at 34 further went on to state that whereas equality before law is a
negative concept, the equal protection of the law .has positive content.
The early judgments of this Court ·referred to the "discrimination" aspect
of Article 14, and evolved a rule by which subjects could be classified.
If the classification was "intelligible" having regard to the object sought o
to be achieved, it would pass muster undei"Article 14 'santi-discrimination
aspect. Again; Subba Rao, J., dissenting, in Lachhman Das v. State of
Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 353 at 395, warned that overemphasis on the
doctrfoe of classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to discover
some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive
the Articje of its glorious content. He referred to the doctrine of E
classification as a "subsidiary rule" evolved by courts to give practical
content to the said Article.
33. In the pre-1974 era, the judgments of this Court did refer to
the "rule oflaw" or "positive" aspect of Article 14, the concomitant of
which is that if an action is found to be arbitrary and, therefore, F
unreasonable, it wmild negate the equal protection of the law contained
in Article 14 and would be shuck down on this ground. In S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703, this Court held: ··
"In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of
arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which G
our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed
by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive
authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The
rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should
H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A be made by the application of known princi~s and rules and, in
general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should
know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or
without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the
antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule oflaw.
(See Dicey - "Law of the Constitution" - I 0th Edn.,
B
Introduction ex). "Law has reached its finest moments'', stated
Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlick [342 US 98], "when
it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler ....
Where discretion, is absolute, man has always suffered". It is in
this sense that the rnle of law may be said to be the sworn enemy
c of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms
in the case ofJohn Wilkes [(1770) 4 Burr. 2528 at 2539], "means
sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not
by humour : it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful"."
(pages 718- 719)
D This was in the context of service mies being seniority rules, which
applied to the Income Tax Department, being held to be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia.
34. Similarly, again in the context of an Article 14 challenge to
sen ice rules, this Court held in State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram,
1

E (1968) 1 SCR 349 as follows:
'The principle of recruitment by open competition aims at
ensuring equality of opportunity in the matter of employment
and obtaining the services of the most meritorious candidates.
Rules 1 to 8, 9(1) and the first part of Rule 9(2) seek to achieve
F this aim. The last part of Rule 9(2) subverts and destroys the
basic objectives of the preceding mies. It vests in the Government
an arbitrary power of patronage. Though Rule 9( 1) requires the
appointment of successful candidates to Class I posts in the order
of merit and thereafter to Class II posts in the order of merit,
Rule 9(1) is subject to Rule 9(2), and under the cover of Rule
G
9(2) the Government can even arrogate to itself the power of
assigning a Class I post to a less meritorious and a Class II post
to a more meritorious candidate. We hold that the latter part of
Rule 9(2) gives the Government an arbitrary power of ignoring
the just claims of successful candidates for recrnitment to offices
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 1107
[R. F. NARTMAN, J.]

under the State. It is violative of Articles 14 and· 16( 1) of the A
Constitution and must be struck down."
(pages 353 - 354)
35. In the celebrated lndira Gandhi v.-Raj Narain judgment,
reported in 1975 Supp SCC 1, Article 329-A sub-clauses (4) and (5)
were struck down by a Constitution Bench of this Court. Applying the 8
newly evolved basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, Ray, CJ. struck down
the said amendment thus:
"59. Clause (4) suffers from these infirmities. First, the forum
might be changed but another forum has to be created. If t11e c
constituent power became itself the forum to decide the disputes
the constituent power by repealing the law in relation to election
· petitions and matters connected therewith did not have any petition
to seize upon to deal with the same. Secondly, aity decision is to
be made in a_ccordance with law. Parliament has power to create D
law and apply the same. In the present case, the constituent
power did not have any law to apply to the case, because the
previous law did not apply and no other law was applied by clause
(4). The validation of the election in the present case is, therefore,
not by applying any law and it, therefore, offends rnle of law."
E
(at page 44)
36. This passage is of great significance in that the amendment
was said to be bad because the constituent power did not have any law
to apply to the case, and this being so, the rule of law contained in the
Constitution would be violated. This rnle oflaw has an obvious reference F
to Article 14 of the Constitution, in that it would be wholly arbitrary to
decide the case without applying any law, and would thus violate the rnle
of law contained in the said Article. Chandrachud, J., was a little more
explicit in that he expressly referred to Article 14 and stated that Article
329-A is an outright negation of the right of equality conferred by Article
14. This was the case because the law would be discriminatory in that G
certain high personages would be put above the law in the absence of a
differentia reasonably related to the object of the law. He went on to
add:
"681. It follows that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329-A are
arbitrary and are calculated to damage or destroy the rule of H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A law. Imperfections oflanguage hinder a precise definition of the
rule of law as of the definition of 'law' itself. And the
Constitutional law of 1975 has undergone many changes since
A. V. Dicey, the great expounder of the rule of law, delivered his
lectures as Vinerian Professor of English law at Oxford, which
were published in 1885 under the title, "Introduction to the Study
B
of the Law of the Constitution". But so much, I suppose, can
be said with reasonable certainty that the rule of law means that
the exercise of powers of Government shall be conditioned by
law and that subject to the exceptions to the doctrine of equality,
no one shall be exposed to the arbitrary will of the Goyernment.
c Dicey gave three meanings to rule of law: Absence of arbitrary
power, equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes
to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary Jaw
courts and that the Constitution is not the source but the
consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined and enforced
by the courts. The second meaning grew out of Dicey's unsound
D
dislike of the French DroitAdministratifwhich he regarded "as
a misfortune inflicted upon the benighted folk across the Channel"
[See S.A. de Smith: Judicial Review of Administrative Action,
(1968) p. 5). Indeed, so great was his influence on the thought of
the day that as recently as in 1935 Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief
E Justice of England, dismissed the term "administrative law" as
"continental jargon". The third meaning is hardly apposite in the
context of our written Constitution for, in India, the Constitution
is the source of all rights and obligations. We may not therefore
rely wholly on Dicey's exposition of the rule of law but ever
since the second world war, the rule has come to acquire a positive
F
content in all democratic countries. [See Wade and Phillips:
Constitutional Law (Sixth Edn., pp. 70-73)] The International
Commission of Jurists, which has a consultative status under the
United Nations, held its Congress in Delhi in 1959 where lawyers,
judges and law teachers representing fifty-three countries
G affirmed that the rule of law is a dynamic concept which should
be employed to safeguard and advance the political and civil
rights of the individual in a free society. One of the committees
of that Congress emphasised that no law should subject any
individual to discriminatory treatment. These principles must vary
from country to country depending upon the provisions of its
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS l 109
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
..
Constitution and indeed upon whether there exists a written A
Constitution. As it has been said in a lighter vein, to show the ·
supremacy of the Parliament, the charm of the English
Constitution is that "it does not exist": Our Constitution exists
and must continue to exist. It guarantees equality before law
and the equal protection oflaws to everyone. The denial of such
equality, as modified by ,the judicially evolved theory of B
/' ....
classification, is the very negation of rnle oflaw." .
. (at page 258) .
37. This paragraph is an early application of the doctrine of
arbitrariness which follows from the rule oflaw contained in Article 14. c
It is of some significance that Dicey's formulation of the rnle of law was
referred to, which contains both absence of arbitrary power and equality
before the law, as being of the essence of the rule of law.
38. We now come to the development of the doctrine of
arbitrariness and its application to State action as a distinct doctriiie on · D _
which. State action may be struck down as being violative of the hile of
law contained in Article 14. In a significant passage Bhagwati, J., in
E.P. Royappa v. State ofT.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 stated (at page 38):
"85. The last t~o grounds of challenge may be taken up together
for consideration. Though we have fommlated the third ground E
of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in
substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground .
based on violation ofArticles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the
. fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity
for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and F
independent fundamental right because of its great importance
as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public
employment which is so vital to the buiWing up of the new classless
egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is
only an instance of the application of the concept of equality G
. enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus
· while Artide 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine
-0f equality in all matters relating to public ~mploym<ent. The basic ·
principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is
equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a
founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., "a way of life", and
it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic
approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its
all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate
its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many
B
aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and
confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a
positivistic point of view, egualitv is antithetic to arbitrariness. In
fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs
to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and
c caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is
implicit in it that it is unegual both according to political logic and
constitutional Jaw and is therefore violative ofArticle 14, and if it
effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also
violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness
in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.
D
They require that State action must be based on valid relevant
principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not
be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because
that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for
State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the
E antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is
extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it
would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by
Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness
are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in
p· fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by
Articles 14 and 16."
[Emphasis Supplied]
39. This was further fleshed out in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, ( 1978) 1 sec 248, where, after stating that various fundamental
G rights must be read together and must overlap an.d fertilize each other,
Bhagwati, J ., further amplified this doctrine as follows (at pages 283-
284):
"The nature and requirement of the procedure under Article
21
H

'c
SHAYARA -HANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1Hl
· [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] .· .

7. Now, the question immediately arises as to what. is the A
requirement of Article 14: what.is the content and reach of the
great equalising principle enunciated int&ls article? There can
be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is
indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our
democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to B
a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should
· be made to truncate its all~embracing s~ope and meaning, for to
do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a
dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot
be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must
reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority iri E.P. C
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 $-CC 3 : 1974 SCC
a
. (L&S) 165 : (1974) 2 SCR 348Jnamely, that "from positivistic
- ~point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality
and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of
law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch. Where &n act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it · D
that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional
law and is therefore violative ofArticle 14". Article J 4 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment. The principle of reasonableness. which legally as we1!
.as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-
arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence
and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the
test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article
11, It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
F
requirement ofArticle 21 would not be satisfied."
[Emphasis Supplied]
40. This was further clarified in A.L. Kalra v. Project and
Equipment Corpn., (1984) 3 SCC 316, following Royappa (supra)
and holding that arbitrariness is a doctrine distinct from discrimination. It G
was held:
"19 ... It thus appears well-settled that Article 14 strikes at.
arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action
that is arbitrary must necessarily involve tlie negation of equality.
One need not confine the denial of equai'ity to a comparative
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A t:valuation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of
discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies
equal of(sic) protection by law. The Constitution Bench pertinently
observed in Ajay Hasia case [(1981) 1 SCC 722: 1981 SCC
(L&S) 258: AIR 1981SC487: (1981) 2 SCR 79: (1981) 1 LLJ
103] and put the matter beyond controversy when it said
B
"wherever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action whether
it be of the Legislature or of the executive or of an 'authority'
under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and
strikes down such State action". This view was further
·~laborated and affirmed in D.S. Nakara v. Union of
c India [(1983) 1sec305: 1983 sec (L&S) 145: AIR 1983 sc
130: (1983) UPSC 263]. ln Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India [(1978) 1SCC248: AIR I 978 SC 597: (1978) 2 SCR 621]
it was observed that A1iicle 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is thus
too late in the day to contend that an executive action shown to
D
be arbitrary is noteitherjudicially reviewable or within the reach
of Article 14."
(at page 328)
The same view was reiterated in Babita. Prasad v. State of Bihar,
E (1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 268 at 285, at paragraph 31.
41. That the arbitrariness doctrine contained in Article 14 would ·
apply to negate legislation, subordinate legislation and executive action
is clear from a celebrated passage in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid
MujibSchravardi, (1981) 1SCC722 (at pages 740-741):
"16 ... The true scope and ambit of Article 14 has been the subject-
F matter of numerous decisions and it is not necessary to make
any detailed reference to them. It is sufficient to state that the
content and reach of Article 14 must not be confused with the
. doctrine of classification. Unfortunately, in the early stages of
the evolution of our constitutional law, Article 14 came to be
G identified with the doctrine of classification because the view
taken was that that article forbids discrimination and there would
be no discrimination. where the classification making the
differentia fulfils two conditions, namely, (i) that the classification
is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
or things that are grouped together from others left out of the
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1113
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

group; and (ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the A
object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or
executive action. It was for the first time in E.P. Royappa v. State
of Tamil Nadu [(1974)4 Sec 3, 38: 1974 sec (L&S) 165, 200:.
(1974) 2 SCR 348] that this Com1 laid bare a new dimension of
Article I 4 and pointed out that that article has highly activist B
magnitude and it embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness. This
. Court speaking through one of us (Bhagwati, J.) said: [SCe p.
38: sec (L&S) p. 200, para 85]
"The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14
and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now,
what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? C
lt is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a way of
life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or
lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt
to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so
would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic D
concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
"cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and
doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is
antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness
are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law irt a republic
while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. E
Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore
violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to
public employment, it is also viola ti vc ofArticle 16. Articles 14
and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness F
and equality of treatment."
This vital and dynamic aspect which was till then lying latent and
submerged in the few simple but pregnant words of Article 14
was explored and brought to light in Royappa case [(1975) I
SCC 485: 1975 SCC (L&S) 99: (1975) 3 SCR 616] and it was G
reaffirmed and elaborated by this Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union oflndia [(1978) 1 SCC 248] where this Court
again speaking through one ofus (Bhagwati, J.) observed: (SCC
pp. 283-84, para 7)
"Now the question immediately arises as to what is the
requirement of Article 14: What is the content and reach of H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A the great equalising principle enunciated in this Article? There
can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It
is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of
our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected
to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt
should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning,
B
for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality
is. a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it
cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits ....
Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures
fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of
c reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically; is an
essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades
Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence."
This was again reiterated by this Court in International Airport
Authority case [(1979) 3 SCC 489] at p. 1042 (SCC p. 511) of
D the Report. It must therefore now be taken to be well settled
that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action
that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.
The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is
not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of
that.article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether
E the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and
therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is
not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred
to above, the impugned legislative 01' executive action would
plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article
F 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness
in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive
orofan 'authoritv'lmder Article 12,Article 14 immediately springs
into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept
of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire
constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through
G the whole of the fabric of the Constitution."
[Emphasis Supplied]
42. In this view of the law, a three Judge Bench of this Court in
K.R. Lakshmanan (Dr.) v. State of T.N., (1996) 2 SCC 226, strnck
H down a 1986 Tamil Nadu Act on the ground that it was arbitrary and,
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1115
[R. F. NARTMAN, J.]

therefore, violative of Article 14. Two separate arguments were addressed A
under Article 14. One was that the Act in question was discriminato1y
and, therefore, violative ofArticle _14. The other was that in any case the
Act was arbitrary. and for that reason would also violate a separate
facetof Article 14. This is clear from paragraph 45 of the said judgment.
The judgment went on to accept both these arguments. In so far as the B
discrimination aspect is concerned, this Court struck down the 1986 Act ·
on the ground that it was discriminatory in paragraphs 46 and 47.
·Paragraphs 48 ~o 50 are important, in that this Court .struck down the
1986Act for being arbitrary, separately, as follows (at pages 256~257):
"48. We see cons. iderable force in the contention of Mr. Parasaran
that the acquisition and transfer of the undertaking of the Club is
c
arbitrary. The two Acts were amended by the 1949 Act and the
definition of'garning' was amended. The object of the amendment
was to include horse-racing in the definition of 'gaming'. The
provisions of the· 1949 Act were, however, not enforced till the ·
l 974Act was enacted and enforced with effect from 31-3-1975. D
The J 974 Act was enacted with a view to provide for the abolition
.ofwagering or betting on horse-races in the State of Tamil Nadu.
It is thus obvious. that the consistent policy of the State
Government, as projected through various legislations from 1949
onwards, has been to declare horse-racing as gambling .and as
such prohibited under the two Acts. The operation .of the 1974 E
Act was stayed by this Court and as a consequence the horse-
races are continuing under the orders of this Court. The policy
of the State Government as projected in all the enactments on
the subject prior to 1986 shows that the State Government
considered horse-racing as gambling and as such prohibited under F
the law. The 1986 Act on th,e other hand declares horse-racing
as a public purpose and in the interest of the general public.
There is apparent contradiction in the two stands. We do not
agree with the contention of Mr. Parasaran that the 1986 Act is
a colourable piece of legislation, but at the same time we are of
the view that no public purpose is being served by acquisition 0
and transfer of the undertaking of the Club by the Government.
We fail to understand how the State Government can acquire
and take over the functioning of the race-club when it has already
enacted the 1974 Act with the avowed object of declaring horse-
racing as gambling? Having enacted a law to abolish betting on H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A horse-racing and stoutly defending the same before this Court in
the Harne of public good and public morality, it is not open to the
State Government to acquire the undertaking of horse-racing
again in the name of public good and public purpose. It is ex
facie irrational to invoke "public good and public pumose" for
declaring horse-racing as gambling and as such prohibited under
B
law, and at the same time speak of"public pumose and public
good" for acquiring the race-club and conducting the horse-racing
by the Government itself. Arbitrariness is writ large on the face
of the provisions of the 1986 Act.
49. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of 1986 Act are
c discriminatory and arbitrary and as such violate and infract the
right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
50. Since we have struck down the 1986 Act on the ground that
it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary for us
to go into the question of its validity on the ground of Article 19
D of the Constitution."
[Emphasis Supplied]
43. Close upon the heels of this judgment, a discordant note was
struck in State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., ( 1996) 3 SCC 709. Another
E three Judge Bench, in repelling an argument based on the arbitrariness
facet of Article 14, held:
"43. Shri Rohinton Nariman submitted that inasmuch as a large
number of persons falling within the exempted categories are
allowed to consume intoxicating liquors in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, the total prohibition of manufacture and production of
F
these liquors is 'arbitrary' and the amending Act is liable to be
struck down on this ground alone. Support for this proposition is
sought from a judgment of this Court in State ofT.N. v. Ananthi
Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519]. Before, however, we refer to the
holding in the said decision, it would be appropriate to remind
G ourselves of certain basic propositions in this behalf. In the United
Kingdom, Parliament is supreme. There are no limitations upon
the power of Parliament. No court in the United Kingdom can
strike down an Act made by Parliament on any ground. As against
this, the United States of America has a Federal Constitution
where the power of the Congress and the State Legislatures to
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1117
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

make laws is limited in two ways, viz., the division oflegislative A
powers between the States and the Federal Government and
the fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) incorporated in the
Constitution. In India, the position is similar to the United States
of America. The power of Parliament or for that matter, the
State Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law made by,
B
Parliament or the legislature can be struck do\Vn by courts on
two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack oflegislative
competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights
• guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other
constitutional provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish
to enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural c
unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness -concepts
inspired by the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even
in l).S.A., these concepts and in particular the concept of
substantive due process have proved to be of unending
controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a severe
D
curtailment of this ground (substantive due p1~ocess). The main
criticism against the ground of substantive due process being
that it seeks to set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the
legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation. lt is
enough for us to say that by whatever name it is characterised,
the ground of invalidation must fall within the four comers of the E
two grounds mentioned above. fo other words, say, if an
enactment is challenged as violative ofArticle 14, it can be struck
down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/
equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if ari
enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article I 9( I), it can be F
stiuck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses
(2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck
down by just saying that it is arbitra1y or unreasonable. Some or
other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating
an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that G
. court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures,
. composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are
supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and
what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit injudgtnent
over their wisdom. In this connection, it should be remembered

- H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A that even in the case of administrative action, the scope ofjudicial
review is limited to three grounds, viz., (i) unreasonableness, which
can more appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality and
(iii) procedural impropriety (see Council of Civil Service
Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1985 AC 374: ( 1984) 3
All ER 935: (1984) 3 WLR 1174] which decision has been
B
accepted bythis Court as well). The applicability of doctrine of
proportionality even in administrative law sphere is yet a debatable
issue .. (See the opinions of Lords Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secy.
of State.for Home Deptt., exp Brind [1991 AC 696: (1991) I
All ER 720] AC at 766-67 and 762.) It would be rather odd if an
c enactment were to be struck down by applying the said principle
when its applicability even in administrative law sphere is not
fully and finally settled. lt is one thing to say that a restriction
imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if it is
disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite another
thing to say that the court can strike down enactment if it thinks
D
it unreasonable, unnecessa1y or unwarranted."
(at pages 737-739)
44. This judgment failed to notice at least two binding precedents,
first, the judgment ofa Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia (supra) and
E second, the judgment of a coordinate three judge bench in Lakshmanan
(supra). Apart from this, the reasoning contained as to why arbitrariness
cannot be used to strike down legislation as opposed to both executive
action and subordinate legislation was as follows:
(1) According to the Bench in Mc.Dowell (supra), substantive due
F process is not something accepted by either the American courts or our
courts and, therefore, this being a reiteration of substantive due process
being read into Article 14 cannot be applied. A Constitution Bench in
Mohd. Arifv. Supreme Court oflndia, (2014) 9 SCC 737, has held,
following the celebrated Maneka Gandhi (supra), as follows:
"27. The stage was now set for the judgment in Maneka
G
Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR
621: (1978) 1 SCC 248]. Several judgments were delivered, and
the upshot of all of them was that Article 21 was to be read
along with other fundamental rights, and so read not only has the
procedure established by law to be just, fair and reasonable, but
H also the law itself has to be reasonable as Articles 14 and 19
.
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS· .1119
[R. F. NARJMAN, J.]

- have now to be read into Article 21. [See at SCR pp. 646-48: A
SCC pp. 393-95, paras 198-204 per Beg, C.L, at SCR pp. 669,
671-74 & 687: SCC pp. 279-84 & 296-97, paras Sc?_& 18.per
Bhagwati, J. and at SCR pp. 720-23: SCC pp. 335·39, paras 74-
85 per Krishna Iyer, J.]. Krishna Jyer, J: set out the new doctrine
with remarkable clarity thus: {SCR p. 723: SCC pp. 338-39, para B
85)
- "85. To sum up, 'procedure' inArtiCle 21 means fair, not formal
procedure. 'Law' is reasonable law, ·not any enacted piece.
As Article22 specifically spells out the procedural safeguards
for preventive and punitive detention, a law providing for such
detentions should conform to Article 22. It has been rightly C
pointed out that for otherrights forming part of personal liberty,
,_ the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 21 are available.
· Otherwise, as the procedural safeguards contained in Article ·
22 will be available only in cases of preventive and punitive -_
det~i:ition,_the right to life, more fund~mentalthan any other D
__forming pa1t of personal libertyand paramount to the happiness,
.· dignity and worth ofthe individual, wiil not be entitled to any
procedural safeguard save such as a legislatures mood
·chooses." - - -
28. Close on the heels of Maneka Ga~dhi case [Maneka
'i Gandhiv. Union of1ndia, (1978) 2 SCR621: (1978) I SCC E
!
I,
248] came Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 277: 1983
I SCC (Cri) 405], in which case the Court noted as follows: (SCC -
l pp. 283-84, para 6) . --
"6 .... In Sunil Batra v. DelhiAdmn. [(1978) 4 SCC 494: 1979
SCC (Cri) 155], while dealing with the question a,s to whether F
a person awaiting death sentence can be kept in solitary
confinement, Krishna Iyer J. said that though our Constitution
did not have a ~'due process" clause as in the American - ·
Constitution; the same consequence erisi.1ed after the decisions
in Bank Nationalisation case [Rustom Cavasjee Cooper G
(Banks Nationalisation) v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC
248] and Mw:ieka Gandhi case [Maneka Gandhi v. Union
ofIndia, (1978) 2 SCR 621: (1978) 1 SCC 248] ....
InBachan Singh [Bachan Singh v.State ofPw?jab, (1980)
2 sec 684: 1980 sec (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional
validity_ of the death penalty, Sarkaria J ., speaking for the H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance
with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka
Gandhi v. Union ofIndia, (1978) 2 SCR 621 : ( 1978) 1 SCC
248], it will read to say that: (SCC p. 730, para 136)
'136. "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
B except according to fair, just and reasonable procedure
established by valid law."
· The wheel has turned full circle. Substantive due process is now
to be applied to the fundamental right to life and liberty."
(at pages 755-756)
c Clearly, therefore, the three Judge Bench has not noticed Maneka
Gandhi (supra) cited in Mohd. Arif (supra) to show that the wheel has
turned full circle and substantive due process is part of Article 21 as it is
to be read with Articles 14 and 19.
Mathew, J., while delivering the first Tej Bahadur Sapru Memorial
Lecture entitled "Democracy and Judicial Review", has pointed out:
0
"Still another point and I am done. The constitutional makers
have formally refused to incorporate the "due process clause"
in our Constitution on the basis, it seems, of the advice tendered
by Justice Frankfurter to Shri B.N. Rau thinking that it will make
the Court a third Chamber and widen the area of Judicial review.
E But unwittingly, I should think, they have imported the most vital
and active element of the concept by their theory of review of
'reasonable restrictions' which might be imposed by law on many
of the fundamental rights. Taken in its modern expanded sense,
the American "due process clause" stands as a high level
F guarantee of 'reasonableness' in relation between man and state,
an injunction against arbitrariness or oppressiveness. I have
had occa.<;ion to consider this question in Kesavananda Bharati :v
case. I said:
"When a court adjudges that a legislation is bad on the ground
that it is an unreasonable restriction, it is drawing the elusive
G ingredients for its conclusion from several sources .. .If you
examine the cases relating to the imposition of reasonable
restrictions by a law, it will be found that all of them adopt a
standard which the American Supreme Court has adopted in
adjudging reasonableness of a legislation under the due process
H clause."
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1121
-1
j [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

In fact, Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277, followed a A
Constitution Bench judgment in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
& Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 494. In that case, Section 30(2) of the Prisons
Act was challenged as being unconstitutional, because every prisoner
under sentence of death shall be confined in a cell apart from all other
prisoners, that is to say he will be placed under solitary confinement.
B
The Constitution Bench read down Section 30(2) to refer only to a person
who is sentenced to death finally, which would include petitions for mercy

., to the Governor and/or to the President which have not yet been disposed
of. In so holding, Desai, J. speaking for four learned Judges, held (at
pages 574-575):
"228. The challenge under Article 21 must fail on our c
interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 30. Personal liberty
I of the person who is incarcerated is to a great extent curtailed
I by punitive detention. It is even curtailed in preventive detention.
The liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share company with co-
prisoners, if substantially cm1ailcd, would be violative of A11iclc D
21 unless the curtailment has the backing oflaw. Sub-section (2)
of Section 30 establishes the procedure by which it can be
curtailed but it must be read subject to our interpretation. The
word "law" in the expression "procedure established by law" in
) Article 21 has been interpreted to mean in Maneka Gandhi's
E
I case (supra) that the law n1ust be right, just and fair, and not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Otherwise it would be no
procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be
satisfied. If it is arbitra!}'. it would be violative of Article 14. Once
Section 30(2) is read down in the manner in which we have
done, its obnoxious element is erased and it cannot be said that it F
is arbitra!}'. or that there is deprivation of personal liberty without
the authority oflaw."
[Emphasis Supplied]
In.a long and illuminating concuITingjudgment, Krishna Iyer, J ., added
(at page 518):
G
"52. Trne, our Constitution has no 'due process' clause or the
VIII Amendment; but, in this branch of law, after· R. C. Cooper
v. Union of India, ( 1970) l SCC 248 and Maneka Gandhi v.
.Union oflndia, (1978) I SCC 248, the consequence is the same.
For what is punitively outrageous, scandalizinglyunusual or cmel
'
~ H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

·· A and rehabilitatively counter-productive, is unarguably unreasonable
and arbitrary and is shot down by Articles 14.and 19 and ifinflicted
with procedural unfairness, falls foul of Article 21."
(Emphasis Supplied]
Coming to Mithu (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court struck
B down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, by which a mandatory
sentence of death was imposed on life convicts who commit murder in
jail. The argument made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner
was set out thus:
"5. But before we proceed to point out the infirmities from
c which Section 303 suffers, we must indicate the nature of the
argument which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners
in order to assail the validity of that section. The sum anl
substance of the argument is that the provision contained in
Section 303 is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and thereby, it
vi olatesArticle 21 of the Constitution which affords the guarantee
D that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Since the procedure by which Section 303 authorises the
deprivation of life is unfair and unjust, the Section is
unconstitutional. Having examined this argument with care and
E concern, we are of the opinion that it must be accepted and Section
303 of the Penal Code struck down."
(at page 283)
After quoting from Sunil Batra (supra), the question before the
Court was set out thus:
F "6 ...... The question which then arises before us is whether the
sentence ofdeath, prescribed by Section 303 of the Penal Code
for the offence of murder committed by a person who is under a
sentence oflife imprisonment, is arbitrary and oppressive so as
to be violative of the fundamental right conferred by Article 2 L"
(at page 285)
G
After setting out the question thus, the Courffiiiffler stated:
"9 ..... .ls a law which provides for the sentence of death for the
offence of murder, without affording to the accused an opportunity
· to show cause why that sentence should not be imposed, just
and fair? Secondly, is such a law just and fair if, in the very
H nature of things, it does not require the court to state the reasons
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . 1123
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

why the supreme penalty oflaw is called for? Is it not arbitrary A
to provide that whatever may be the circumstances in which the·
·.offence of murder. was committed, the sentence of death shall
be imposed upon the accused?"
(at page287)
·The question was then answered inthe following 1hanl1er: B
. '' 18. !tis because the death sentence has been made mandatory
by Section 303 in regard to a particular classof persons that, as
· a necessary consequence, they are deprived of the opportunity
· under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to show.
cause why the.y should not be sentenced.to death and the court C
.· is relievedfromits obligation under Section 354(3) of that Code
to state the special reasons for imposing the sentence· of death,
The deprivationoftheserights and safegi.iards which is bound to
result in injustice is harsh, arbitrary and unjust."
19.:. To prescribe a mandatory sentence of death for the second·
of such offences'.for the reason that the offender was under the · D
sentence of life imprisonment for the first of such offences is
arbitrary beyond the bounds of all reason. Assuming that Section
235(2).ofthe Criminal Procedure Code were applicable to the
case and the court was under an obligation to hear the accused
on the question of sentence, it would have to put some such E
question to the accused: ·
"You were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of
forgery. You have committed a murder while you were under·
that sentence of life imprisonment. Why should you not be
sentenced to death?"
F
The question carries its own refutation. Hhi¢ilfahts how arbitrID
and irrational it is to provide for a mandatory sentence of death.
·in such circumstances.
23. On a consideration of the various circumstances which we
have mentioned in this judgment, we are of the opinion that .
Section 303 of the Penal Code violates the guarantee of equality G
. contained in Article 14 as also the right conferred by Article 21 of
the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except .according to procedure established by
law." . ·
· (at pages 293, 294 and296) H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A In a concurring judgment, Chinnappa Reddy, J., struck down the
Section in the following tenns:
"25. Judged in the light shed by Maneka Gandhi [(1978) l SCC
248] and Bachan Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 684], it is impossible to
uphold Section 303 as valid. Section 303 excludes judicial
B discretion. The scales of justice are removed from the hands of
the Judge so soon as he pronounces the accused guilty of the
offence. So final, so irrevocable and so irrestitutable is the
sentence of death that no law which provides for it without
involvement of the judicial mind can be said to be fair, just and
reasonable. Such a law must necessarily be stigmatised as
c arbitrary and oppressive. Section 303 is such a law and it must
go the way of all bad laws. I agree with my Lord Chief Justice
that Section 303, Indian Penal Code, must be struck down as
unconstitutional."
(at page 298)
D It is, therefore, clear from a reading of even the aforesaid two Constitution
Bench judgments that Article 14 has been referred to in the context of
the constitutional invalidity of statutory law to show that such statutory
law will be struck down if it is found to be "arbitrary".
However, the three Judge Bench in Mcdowell (supra) dealt with
E the binding Constitution Bench decision in Mithu (supra) as follows (at
page 739):
"45. Reference was then made by Shri G Ramaswamy to the
decision in Mithu v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 277: 1983
SCC (Cri) 405] wherein Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code
was struck down. But that decision turned mainly on Article 21
F though Article 14 is also referred to along with Article 21. Not
only did the offending provision exclude any scope for application
ofjudicial discretion, it also deprived the accused of the procedural
safeguards contained in Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The ratio of the said decision is thus
G of no assistance to the petitioners herein."
A binding judgment of five learned Judges of this Court cannot be said to
be of"no assistance" by stating that the decision turned mainly on Article
21, though Article 14 was also refen-ed to. It is clear that the ratio of the
said Constitution Bench was based both on Article 14 and Article 21 as
is clear from the judgment of the four learned Judges in paragraphs 19
H
SHAYARA. BANO v. uNION OF INDIA J\W OTHERS 1125
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

and 23 set out supra. 1 A three Judge B'ench in the teeth of this ratio A
1
It is clear thl!t one judgment can have more than one ratio decidendi. This was
recognized early on by the Privy Council in an appeal fromthe ..Supreme Court ofNew
South Wales, in Commissioners ofTaxation for the Stat~ of New South Wales v. Palmer
& Others, 1907 Appeal Cases 179 at 184. Lord Macnaghten put it thus": ·
· · '' .... But it is impossible to treat a proposition which the court "declares to be. a
distinct and sufficient ground for its decision as a mere dictum, simply because B
there is also another ground stated upon which, standing alone, the case might
have been determined. . .
In Jacob v. London County Council,-[1950] 1 All E.R. 737 at 741, the
Hosue of Lords, after referring to some earlier decisions held, as follows:
" .. However, this may be, there is, in lily opinion, no justification for regarding
as obiter dictum a reason given by a judge for his decision, because he has given C
another reason also~ If it were a proper test to ask whether the decision would
have been the same apart from the proposition alleged to be obiter, then a case
which exfacie decided two things would decide nothing. A good ilhistrati<?n will
be found in London Jewellers, Ltd., v. Attenborough ([1934] 2 K. B. 206). In
. that case the determination of one of the issues d~pended on how far the Court
of Appeal was bound by its previous decision in Folkes v,J(ing ([1923] l K.B.
282), in which the court had given two grounds for its decision, the second of. D
which [as stated' by Greer, L.i ([1934] 2 K.B. 222), in Attenborough's case
([1934] 2 K.B. 206) was that:
" .... where a man obtains possession with authority to sell, or to become
the owner himself, and then sells, he cannot be treated as having obtained
the goods by larceny by a trick." ·
In Attenborough 's case ([ 1934] 2 K.B. 206) it was contended that, since there
was another reason given for the decision in Folkes' case ([1923] 1 K.B. 282), E
the second reason was obiter, but Greer; L.J., said ([1934] 2 K.B. 222) in
reference to the arguments of counsel:
"I cannot help feeling that if we were unhampered by authority there is
much to be said for this proposition which commended itself to Swift,
J. and which commended itself to me in Folkes J( King ([1923] l K.B.
282), but that view is not open to us in view ofthe decision of the Court
of Appeal in Folkes v. King ([1923] I K.B. 282). In that case two F
reasons were given by all the members of the Court of Appeal for their
decision and we are not entitled to pick out the first reason as the ratio·
decidendi and neglect the second, or to pick out the second reason as the
ratio. decidendi and neglect the"first; we must take both as forming the
ground of the judgment."
So, also, in Cheater v. Cater ([ 1918] I K.B. 24 7) Pickford, L.J.; after citing a G
.passage from the judgment of Mellish, L.J., in Ersking v. Adeane ((1873), 8 Ch.

.
App, 756), said ([1918]1K.B.252): .
"That is. a distinct statement of the law and not a dictum. It is the ..second
ground given by the lord justice for his judgment. .If a judge states two
-

grounds for his judgment and bases his c!ecision upon _both, neither of
t~ose grounds "is a dicium." · ·
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A cannot, therefore, be said to be good law. Also, the binding Constitution
Bench decision in Sunil Batra (supra), which held arbitrariness as a
ground for striking down a legislative provision, is not at all referred to in
the three Judge Bench decision in Mcdowell (supra).
(2) The second reason given is that a challenge under Article 14 has to
B be viewed separately from a challenge under Article 19, which is a
reiteration of the point of view of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras,
1950 SCR 88, that fundamental rights must be seen in watertight
compartments. We have seen how this view was upset by an eleven
Judge Bench of this Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of
India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, and followed in Maneka Gandhi (supra).
C Arbitrariness in legislation is very much a facet of unreasonableness in
Article 19(2) to (6), as has been laid down in several Judgments of this
Court,, some of which are referred to in Om Kumar (infra) and, therefore,
there is no reason why arbitrariness cannot be used in the aforesaid
sense to strike down legislation under Article 14 as well.
D (3) The third reason given is that the Courts cannot sit in :Judgment over
Parliamentary wisdom. Our law reports are replete with instance after
instance where Parliamentary wisdom has been successfully set at naught
by this Court because such laws did not pass muster on account of their
being '\mreasonable", which is referred to in Om Kumar (infra).
E We must never forget the admonition given by Khanna, J. in State
of Punjab v. Khan Chand, (1974) 1SCC549. He said:
"12. It would be wrong to assume that there is an element of
judicial arrogance in the act of the Courts in striking down an
enactment. The Constitution has assigned to the Courts the
F function of determining as to whether the laws made by the
Legislature are in conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution. In adjudicating the constitutional validity of statutes,
the Courts discharge an obligation which has been imposed upon
them by the Constitution. The Courts would be shirking their
responsibility if they hesitate to declare the provisions of a statute
G
to be unconstitutional, even though those provisions are found to
be violative of the Articles of the Constitution. Articles 32 and
226 are an integral part of the Constitution and provide • remedies
for enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights conferred
by the Constitution. Hesitation or refusal on the part of the Courts
H to declare the provisions of an enactment to be unconstitutional,
. .
SH;\YARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1127
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

even though they are found to infringe the Constitution because A
of any notion of judicial humility would in a large number of
· cases have the effect of taking away or in any case eroding the
remedy provided to the aggrieved parties by the Constitution.
Abnegation in matters affecting one's own interest may
.sometimes be commendable but abnegation in a matter where B
power is conferred to protect the interest of others against
measures which are violative of the Constitution is fraught with
serious consequences. It is as much the duty of the courts to
declare a provision of an enactment to be unconstitutional if if
contravenes any article of the Constitution as it is theirs to uphold
its validity in case it is found' to suffer from no such infirmity." C .
This again cannot detain us.
(4) One more reason given is that the proportionality doctrine, doubtful
of application even in administrative law, should not, therefore, apply to
this facet of Article 14 in constitutional law. Proportionality as a
constitutional doctrine has been highlighted in Om Kumar v. Union of D
India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 at 400-401 as follows:
"30: On account of a Chapter on Fundamental Rights in Part Ill
of our Constitution right from 1950, Indian Courts did not suffer
from th<: disability similar to the one experienced by English Courts
for declaring as unconstitutional legislation on the principle of E ·
proportionality or reading them in a manner consistent with the
charter of rights. Ever since 1950, the principle of"proportionality" .
has indeed been applied vigorously to legi~lative (and
administrative) action in India. While dealing with the validity of
legislation infringing fundamental freedoms enumerated in Article F .
19(1) of the Constitution oflndia - such as freedom, of speech
and expression, freedom to assemble peaceably, freedom to form
0
associations and unions, fieedom to move freely throughout the
territory of India, freedom to resid~ and settle in any part of
· India - this Court has occasion to consider whether the
restrictions imposed by legislation were disproportionate to the G
situation and were not the least restrictive of the choices. The
burden of proof to show ,that the restric.tion was reasonable lay
on the State. "Reasonable restrictions" under Articles 19(2) to
(6) could be imposed on these freedoms only by legislationand
courts had occasion throughout to consider the proportionality of H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.
..
A the restrictions. In numerous judgments of this Court, the extent
to which "reasonable restrictions" could be imposed was
considered. In Chintamanrao v. State of MP. [AIR 1951 SC
118: 1950 SCR 759] Mahajan, J. (as he then was) observed that
"reasonable restrictions" which the State could impose on the
fundamental rights "should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
B
nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the pubiic".
"Reasonable" implied intelligent care and deliberation, that is,
the choice of a course which reason dictated. Legislation which
arbitrarily or excessively invaded the right could not be said to
contain the quality of reasonableness unless it struck a proper
c balance between the rights guaranteed and the control '
pennissible under Articles 19(2) to (6). Otherwise, it must be
held to be wanting in that quality. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State
ofMadras v. V.G. Row [AIR 1952SC196: 1952 SCR 597: 1952
Cri LJ 966], observed that the Court must keep in mind the "nature
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the imderlying purpose
D of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the
imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time". This principle
of proportionality vis-a-vis legislation was referred to by Jeevan
Reddy, J. in State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [(1996) 3 SCC
E 709] recently. This level of scrntiny has been a common feature
in the High Court and the Supreme Court in the last fifty years.
Decided cases run into thousands.
31. Article 21 guarantees liberty and has also been subjected to
. principles of "proportionality". Provisions of the Criminal
F Procedure Code, 1974 and the Indian Penal Code came up for
consideration in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2
SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] the majority upholding the
legislation. The dissentingjudgrnent ofBhagwati, J. (see Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 24 : 1982 SCC (Cri)
'
535]) dealt elaborately with "proportionality" and held that the
G punishment provided by .the statute was disproportionate.
32. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India examined
whether the classification was based on inteiligible differentia
and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the
... ..
-
object of the legislation. Obviously, when the courts considered
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UN10N OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1129
[R. E NARJMAN, J.]

the question whether the classification was based on intelligible .A
differentia, .the courts were examining the validity of the
differences .and the adequacy of the differences. This is again
. nothing but the principle of proportionality. There are also cases
where legislation or rules. have been struck down as being
arbitrary in the sense of being unreasonable [see Air B
India v. Nergesh Meerza [(1981) 4 SCC 335: 1981 SCC (L&S)
599] (SCC at pp. 372-373)]. But this latter aspect of striking
down legislation only on the basis of "arbitrariness" has been
doubted in State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co. [(1996) 3 SCC
709] ."
· 45. The thread of reasonableness runs. through the entire C
fundamental rights Chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously
unreasonable and being contrary to the rule oflaw, would violate Article
14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three Judges' Bench
decision in McDowell (supra) when it is said that a constitutional challenge
can succeed on the ground that a law is "disproportionate, excessive or D
unreasonable", yet such challenge would fail on the very ground of the
law being "unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted". The arbitrariness
. doctrine when applied to legislation obviously would not involve the latter
challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate, excessive
u or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the aforesaid grounds,
therefore, do not seek to differentiate between State action in its various E
forms, all of which are interdicted if they fall foulof the fundamental.
rights guaranteed to persons and citizens ·in Part Ill of the Constitution.
46. We only need to point out that even after McDowell (supra),
this Court has in fact negated statutory law on the ground of it being
arbitrary and therefore violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution oflndia. F
In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2
SCC l, this Court held that after passage of time, a law can become
arbitrary, and, therefore, the freezing of rents at a 1940 marks;! value
under the Bombay Rent Act would be arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India (see paragraphs 8 to 15 and 31 ). G
47. Similarly in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. etc. etc., (2004) 4 SCC 311 at 354, this Court struck
down Section 17(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFinancial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as follows:
H
1130 · SUPREMl;:l COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "64. The condition of pre-deposit in the present case is bad
rendering the remedy illusory on the grounds that: (i) it is imposed
while approaching the adjudicating authority of the first instance,
not in appeal, (ii) there is no determination of the amount due as
yet, (iii) the secured assets or their management with transferable
interest is already taken over and under control of the secured.
B
creditor, (iv) no special reason for double security in respect of
an amount yet to be determined and settled, (v) 75% of the amount
claimed by no means would be a meagre amount, and (vi) it will
leave the borrower in a position where it would not be possible
for him to raise any funds to make deposit of 75% of the
c undetermined demand. Such conditions are not only onerous and
oppressive but also unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, in
our view, sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is unreasonable,
arbitrary and violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution."
48. In two other fairly recent judgments namely State of Tamil
D Nadu v. K. Shyarn Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737 at paragraphs 50 to 53,
and A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. 8. Narasimha
Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286 at paragraph 29, this Court reiterated the
position of law that a legislation can be struck down on the ground that it
is arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
E 49. In a Constitution Bench decision in Ashoka Kumar Thakur
v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC l at 524, an extravagant argun1ent that
the impugned legislation was intended to please a section of the
community as part of the vote catching mechanism was held to not be a
legally acc~ptable plea and rejected by holding that:

F "219. A legislation passed by Parliament can be challenged only
on constitutionally recognised grounds. Ordinarily, grounds of
attack of a legislation is whether ,the legislature has legislative
competence or whether the legislation is ultra vires the provisions
of the Constitution. If any of the provisions of the legislation
violates fundamental rights or any other provisions of the
G Constitution, it could certainly be a valid ground to set aside the
legislation by invoking the power ofjudicial review. A legislation
could also be challenged as unreasonable if it violates the principles
of equality adumbrated in our Constitution or it unreasonably
restricts the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the
H ." Constitution. A legislation cannot be challenged simply on the·
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1131
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

ground of unreasonableness because that by itself does not A
constitute a ground. The validity of a constitutional amendment
and the validity of plenaiy legislation have to be decided purely
as questions of constitutional law. This Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592] said: (SCC p.
660, para 149)
B

c

"43 . ... The power of Parliament or for that matter, the State F
Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law made by
Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on
two grounds and two grounds alone viz. (/}lack oflegislative
competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamentalrights
guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other G
constitutional provision. There is no third ground: ... No
enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary
or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to
be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be
struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified.
H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A Parlil!ment and the legislatures, composed as they are of the
representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be
aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for
them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom."
204. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. G.
B· Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806), after
referring to McDowell case [(1996) 3 SCC 709) stated as under:
(G. Ganayutham case [(1997) 7 SCC 463: 1997 SCC (L&S)
1806), sec p. 476, para 22)
"22 . ... That a statute can be struck down if the restrictions
c imposed by it are disproportionate or excessive having regard
to the purpose of the statute and that the court can go into the
question whether there is a proper balancing of the
fundamental right and the restriction imposed, is well settled."
205. Plea of unreasonableness, arbitrariness, proportionality, etc.
D always raises an element of subjectivity on which a court cannot
strike down a statute or a statutory provision, especially when
the right to property is no more a fundamental right. Otherwise
the court will be substituting its wisdom to that of the legislature,
which is Impermissible in our constitutional democrac)I."

E [Emphasis Supplied]
51. ln a recent Constitution Bench decision in Natural Resources
Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.I of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC
1, this Court went into the arbitrariness doctrine in some detail. It referred
to Royappa (supra), Maneka Gandhi (supra) and Ajay Hasia (supra)
(and quoted from paragraph 16 which says that " ... the impugned
F
legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee
of equality under Article 14 would be breached ... "). It then went on to
state that "arbitrariness" and "unreasonableness" have been used
interchangeably as follows:
"103. As is evident from the above, the expressions "arbitrariness"
G and "unreasonableness" have been used interchangeably and in
fact, one has been defined in terms of the other. More recently,
. in Sharma Transport v. Govt. ofA.P. [(2002) 2 SCC 188], this
Court has observed thus: (SCC pp. 203-04, para 25)
"25 . ... In order to be described as arbitrary, it must be shown
H that it was not reasonable and manifestly arbitrary. The
SHAYARA BANQ v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1133
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

expression 'arbitrarily' means: in an unreasonable manner, as A
fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate
deJerminil)g principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-
rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment,
depending on the will alone."
(at page 81) B
After stating all this, it then went on to comment, referring to McDowell
(supra) that no arbitrary use should be made of the arbitrariness doctrine.
It then concluded (at page 83):
"107. From a scrntiny of the trend of decisions it is clearly
perceivable that the action of the State, whether it relates to C
distribution oflargesse, grant of contracts or allotment ofland, is
to be tested-on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A law may not be struck down for being arbitrary without the
· pointing out of a constitutional infirmity as McDowell
. case [Cl 996) 3 SCC 7091 has said. Therefore. a State action
has to be tested for constitutional infinnities qua Article D
14 of the Constitution. The action has to be faif.
reasonable. non-discriminatory. transparent, non-capricious,
unbiased. without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion
of healthy competition and equitable treatrt1ent. It should conform
to the norms which are rational. informed with reasons and guided E
by public interest, etc. All these principles are inherent in the
fundamental conception of Article 14. This is the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia."
[Emphasis Supplied]
On a reading of this judgment, it is dear that this Court did not read F
McDowell (supra) as being an authority for the proposition that legislation
can n.ever be strnck down as being arbitrary: Indeed the Court, after
referring to all the earlier judgments, and Ajay Hasia (supra) in particular,
which stated that legislation can be struck down on the ground that it is
"arbitrary" under Article 14, went on to conclude that "arbitrariness" G
when applied to legislation cannot be used loosely. Instead, it broad
based the test, stating that if a constitutional infirmity is found, Article 14
will interdict such infirmity.Anda constitutional infirmity is found in Article
14 itself whenever legislation is "manifestly arbitrary"; i.e. when it is
not fair, not reasonable, discriminatory, not transparent, capricious, biased,
H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A with favoritism or nepotism and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy
competition and equitable treatment. Positively speaking, it should
conform to norms which are rational, informed with reason and guided
by public interest, etc.
52. Another Constitution Bench decision reported as Dr.
B Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2014) 8 SCC 682, dealt with a challenge to· Section 6-A of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. This Section was ultimately
struck down as-being discriminatory and hence violative ofArticle 14. A
specific reference had been made to the Constitution Bench by the
reference order in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central
C Bureau of Investigation, (2005) 2 SCC 317, and after referring to
several judgments including Ajay Hasia (supra), Mardia Chemicals
(supra), Malpe Vishwauath Acharya (supra) and McDowell (supra),
the reference inter alia was as to whether arbitrariness and
unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14, are or are not available as
D grounds to invalidate a legislation.
After referring to the submissions of counsel, and several judgments
on the discrimination aspect ofArticle 14, this Court held:
"48. In E.P. Royappa [E.P. Royappa v. State of TN., (1974) 4
SCC 3:· 1974 SCC (L&S) 165), it has been held by this Court
E that the basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16
are equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court
observed in para 85 as under: (SCC p. 38) ·
· "85 . ... From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic
to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn
F enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the
other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where
an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional Jaw and is therefore
violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to
G
public employment, it is also violative ofArticle 16. Articles 14
and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness
and equality of treatment."
Court's approach
49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a
H law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1135
I
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
J there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, A
I,, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be
shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative
): process needs to be recognised by the Court and due regard and
. deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where
L
•J
· the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional
B
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must
· remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability ofArticle
14 in relation to invalidation oflegislation. The two dimensions of
Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation
invalid are now well recognised and these are: (i) discrimination,
based on an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii) <!:
excessive delegation of powers; conferment ofuncanalised and
unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of
delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to
pass administrative orders-if such conferment is without any
guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the
D
Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation
does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another
view or because another method may be considered to be as
I good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even
I · economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute
their views on what the policy is." - E
I (at pages 721-722)
I Since the Court ultimately struck down Section 6~A on the ground
that it W,llS discriminatory, it became unnecessary to pronounce on one
r of the questions referred to it, namely, as to whether arbitrariness could
be a ground for invalidating legislation under Article 14. Indeed the F
Court said as niuch in paragraph 98 ofthejudgment as under (at page
740): '
"Having considered the impugned provision contained in Section
6-A and for the reasons indicated above, we do not think that it
is necessary to consider the other objections challenging the G
impugned provision in the context of Article 14." .
' 53. However, irt State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., ( 1997)
2 SCC 453 at paragraph 22, in State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli; (2012)
6 SCC 312 at paragraphs 17 to 19, in Rajbala v. State of Haryana &
Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 445 at paragraphs 53 to 65 and Binoy Viswam v. H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Unio~ ofindia, (2017) 7 SCC 59 at paragraphs 80 to 82, McDowell
(supra) was read as being an absolute ·bar to the use of "arbitrariness"
as a tool to strike down legislation under Article 14. As has been noted
by us earlier in this judgment, Mcdowell (supra) itself is per incuriam,
not having noticed several judgments of Benches of equal or higher
B strength, its reasoning even otherwise being flawed. The judgments,
following McDowell (supra) are, therefore, no longer good law.
54. To complete the picture, it is important to note that subordinate
legislation can be struck down on the ground that it is arbitrary and,
therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Cellular
Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority
C of India, (2016) 7 SCC 703, this Court referred to earlier precedents,
and held:
"Violation of fundamental rights
42. We have already seen that one of the tests for challenging
D the constitutionality of subordinate legislation is that subordinate
legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. Also, it is settled
law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the
grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation.
(See Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union
o.f Jndia [(1985) 1sec641: 1985 sec (Tax) 121], sec at p.
E 689, para 75.)
43. The test of"manifest arbitrariness" is well explained in two
In
judgments of this Court. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304], this Court held: (SCC p. 314,
para 13)
F
"13. It is next submitted before us that the amended Rules are
arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship and, therefore,
violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Although the protection.
of Article 19(1 )(g) may not be available to the appellants, the
Rules must, undoubtedly, satisfy the test of Article 14, which is
G a guarantee against arbitrary action. However, one must bear
in mind that what is being challenged here under Article 14 is
not executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of
arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not
necessarily apply to delegated legislation. Jn order that
delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation
H
-" I
•\
' . SHAYARA HANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1137.
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be A
reasonably expected to emanate from an authority
delegated with the law-making power. In Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) (P) .Ltd. v. Union of India [( 1985) 1
SCC641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121], this Court said thata piece of
subordinate legislaticm does not carry the same degree of
B
immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by ~competent
legislature. A subordinate legislation may be questioned
under Article 14 on. the ground .that it is unreasonable;.
'unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable,
but in the sense that it. is manifestly arbitrary'. Drawing a ·
comparison between .the law in England and in India, the Court c
further observed that in England the Judges would say,
'Parliament never intended the authority to make such Rules;
they are unreasonable and ultra vires', In India, arbitrariness
is not a separate ground since it will ·come within the
embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. But subordinate
D
legislation must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to
J
be in conformity
.
with the statute or
- ~- .
that it offends Article
14 of the Constitution."
,
44. Also, in Sharma Transport v. State ofA.P. [(2002) 2 SCC
188], t4is-Court held: (SCCpp. 203-04, para 25)"
.E
. "25 ... :-The tests of arbitrary action applicable to executive
action do riot necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order .
.) to strike down a delegated legislation as arbitrary it has to be
established that there is manifest arbitrariness. In order to be
described as arbitrary, it must be shown that it was not
-
reasonable and manifestly arbitrary. The expression "arbitrarily" F
' means: in ari·unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously
or at p\easure, without adequate determining principle, not
founded in the. nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting
according to reason
.
or judgment, depending on .
the will
. alone."
"' . (at pages 736-737) G

· 55. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) J SCC 641,
stated that it was settled law that subordinate legislationcan be challenged
on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation.
H
1138 SUPREME· COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two
types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under
Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in
the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as
subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore,
B must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/
or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done
which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be
manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in
the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would
apply to negate legislation as well under Article l4.
c 56. Applying the test of manifest arbitrariness to the case at hand,
it is clear that Triple Talaq is a form ofTalaq which is itself considered to
be something innovative, namely, that it is not in the Sunna, being ati
irregular or heretical form ofTalaq. We have noticed how in Fyzee's
book (supra), the Hanafi school of Shariat law, which itself recognizes
D this form ofTalaq, specifically states that though lawful it is sinful in that
it incurs the wrath of God. Indeed, in.Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.,
(2002) 7 SCC 518, this Court after referring to a number of authorities
including certain recent High Court judgments held as under:
"13 ... The correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy Quran
E is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by
attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by
two arbiters - one from the wife's family and the other from
the husband's; ifthe attempts fail, talaq may be effected (para
13). In Rukia Khatun case [(I 981) 1 Gau LR 375] th.e Division
Bench stated that the correct law of talaq, as ordained by the
Holy Quran, is: (i) that "talaq" must be for a reasonable cause;
and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation
between the hµsband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen
by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from
his. If their attempts fail, "talaq" may be effected. The Division
G Bench expressly recorded its dissent from the Calcutta and
·Bombay views which, in their opinion, did not lay down the correct
law.
14. We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid
observations made by the learned Judges of the High Courts."
. (at page 526) .i
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1139

57. Given the fact that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is A
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 eyer take place. Also, as understood by the Privy Council in
Rashid Ahmad (supra), such Triple Talaq is valid even if it is not for
any reasonable cause, which view of the law no longer holds good after B
Shamim Ara (supra). This being the case, 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 fyiuslim man without any attempt
at reconciliation so as to save it. This form ofTalaq must, therefore., be.
held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, C
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
stmck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces
Triple Talaq. Since we h;ve declared Section 2 of the 1937 Act to be
void to the extent indicated above on the narrower ground of it being D
manifestly arbitrary, we do not find the need to go into the ground of
discrimination in these cases, as was argued by the learned Attorney
General and those supporting him.
KURIAN,· J.:
1. What is bad in theology was once good in law but after Shariat. E
has been declared as the personal law, whether what is Quranically
wrong can be legally right is the issue to be -eonsidered in this case.
Therefore, the simple question that needs to be answered in thj.s case is
only whether triple talaq has any legal sanctil¥. That is no more res
-lntegra. This Court in Shamim Ara v. State of UP and Another1 has
held, though not in so many words, that triple talaq lacks legal sanctity. F
Therefore, in terms of Article 1412, Shamim Ara is the law that is
applicable in India.
2. Having said that, I shall also make an independent endeavor to
explain the legal position in ShamimAra and lay down the law explicitly.
G
3. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 .·
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1937 Act") was enacted to put an end to
1
(2002) 7 sec sis
2 141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts. - The la~
declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the. territory of
~~. . H
., I

1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A the unholy, oppressive and discriminatory customs and usages in the
Muslim community. 3 Section 2 is most relevant in the face of the present
controversy.
2. Application of Personal law to Muslims. - Notwithstanding
any custom or usage to th~· contrary, in all questions (save .
B questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate
succession, special property of female.s, including personal
property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other
provision -of-Personal Law, marriage. dissolution of marriage.
including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat,
maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust
c properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable
institutions and cjlaritable and religious ·endowments) the rule of
decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat).
(Emphasis supplied)
D . ..
4. After the 1937 Act, in respect of the enumerated subjects under
Section 2 regarding "marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq",
the law that is applicable to Muslims shall be only their personal law
namely Shariat. Nothing more, nothing less. Itis not a legi_sla~ion regulating

E ' STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
For several years past it has been the cherished desire of the Muslims of
British India that Customary Law should in no case take the place of Muslim Personal
Law. The matter has been repeatedly agitated in the press as well as on the platform.
The Jamiat•ul-Ulema-i-Hind, the gieate_st Moslem religious body has Sllpported tI]e
demand and invited the attention of all concerned to the urgent necessity of introducing
F a measure to this effect. Customary Law is a misnomer in as much as it has not any !"
· sound basis to stand upon and is very niuch liable to frequent changes and cannot be
expected to attain at any time in the future that certainty and definiteness which must
be the characteristic of all laws. The status of Muslim women under the so-called
Customary Law is simply disgraceful. All the Muslim Women Organisations have
therefore condemned the..CUstomarv Law as it adverselv affects their rights. They
demand that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) should be made applicable to them.
G The introduction of Muslim Personal Law will automatically raise them to the position
to which they are naturally entitled. In addition to this present measure. if enacted,
would have very saluiary effect on society because it would en~ure certainty and
definiteness in the mutual rights andpbligations of the public. Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) exists in the form of a vedtable code and is too well known to admit of any
doubt or to entail any great labour in the shape of research. which is the chief feat\!re of
Customary Law.
·H (Emphm;is supplied)
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 1141
[KURIAN, J.]

talaq. In contradistinction, The Dissolution ofMuslim Marriages Act, A
1939 provides for the ground~ for dissolution of marriage. So is the case
with the Hindu Marriage Act, 195 5. Tht; 193 7 Act simply makes Shariat
applicable as the rule of decision in.the matters enumerated in section 2.
Therefore, while talaq is governed by Shariat, the specific grounds and
procedure for talaq have not been codified in the ~937 Act.
B
5. In that view of the matter, I wholly agree with the learned
Chief Justice that the 1937 Act is not a legislation regulating talaq.
Consequently, I respectfully disagree with the stand taken by
Nariman, J. that the 1937 A'ct is a legislation regulating triple talaq and
hence, the same can be tested on the anvil ofArticle 14. However, on
the pure question oflaw that a legislation, be it plenary or subordinate, c
can be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, I agree with the
illuminating exposition of law by Nariman, J. I am alsoof the strong ·
view that the Constitutional democracy of India cannot conceive of a
legislation which is arbitrary.
6. Shariat, having been declared to be Muslim Personal Law by D
the 1937 Act, we have to necessarily see what Shariat is. This has been
beautifully explained by the renowned author, Asaf A.A. Fyzee in his
book Outlines of Muhammadan Law, s•h Edition; 2008 at page 10. 4
" ... What is morally beautiful. that must be done; and what is
· morally ugly must not be done. That is law or Shariat and nothing E
else can be law. But what is absolutely and indµbitably beautiful,
and what is absolutely and indubitably ugly? These are the
important legal questions; and who can answer them? Certainly
not.man, say the Muslim legists. We have the Qur'an which is
the vezy word of God. Suru>lementarv to it we have Hadith which F
are the Traditions of the Prophet- the records of his actions and
; i"'''jo
his sayings- from which we must derive help and inspiration in ··~

arriving at legal decisions. If there is nothing either in the Our 'an
or in the Hadith to answer the particular question which is before
u8, we have to follow the dictates of secular reason in accordance
· with certain definite principles. These principles constitute the G
basis of sacred law or Shariat as the Muslim doctors understand
it. And it is these fundamental juristic notions which we must try
to study and analyse before we approach the study of the Islamic
'Tahir Mahmood (ed.), Asfa A.A. Fyzee Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 5" edition.
2008. I H .
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. I
·'

A civil law as a whole, or even that small part ofit which in India is
known as Muslim law."
7. There are four sources tOr lslamic law- (i) Quran (ii) Hadith
(iii) Ijma (iv) Qiyas. The learned author has rightly said that the Holy
Quran is the "first source oflaw". According to the learned author, pre-
B eminence is to be given to the Quran. That means, sources other than
the. Holy Quran are only to supplement what is given in it and to supply
what is not provided for. In other words, there cannot be any Hadith,
Ijma or Qiyas against what is expressly stated in the Quran. Islam
cannot be anti-Quran. According to Justice Bader Durrez Ahmad in
Masroor Ahined v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another5 :
c
"14. In essence, the Shariat is a compendium of rules guiding
the life of a Muslim from birth to death in all aspects of law,
ethics and etiquette. These rules have been crystallized through
the process of ijtihad employing the sophisticated jurisprudential
techniques. The primary source is the Quran. Yet, in matters
D not directly covered by the divine book, rules were developed
looking to the hadis and upon driving a consensus. The differences
arose between the schools because ofreliance on different hadis,
differences in consensus and differences on qiyas and aql as
the case may be;"
E (Emphasis supplied)
8. It is in that background that I make an attempt to see what the
Quran states on talaq. There is reference to talaq in three Suras- in Sura
II while dealing with social life of the community, in Sura IV while dealing
with decencies of family life and in Sura LXV while dealing explicitly
F with talaq.
9. Sura LXV of the Quran deals with talaq. It reads as follows:
"Ta/aq, or Divorce.
In the name of God, Most Gracious,
G Most Merciful.
1. 0 Prophet! When ye
Do divorce women,
Divorce them at their

H '!LR (2007) II Delhi 1329
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1143
[KURIAN, J.]

Prescribed periods, A
And count (accw-ately)
Their prescribed periods:
And fear God your Lord:
And tum them not out
B
Of their houses, nor shall
They (themselves) leave,
Except in case they are
Guilty of some open lewdness,
Those are limits c
Set by God: and any
Who transgresses the limits
Of God, does verily
Wrong his (own) soul:
D·
Thou knowest not if
Perchance God will
Bring about thereafter
Some new situation.
E
2. Thus when they fulfill
Their term appointed,
Either take them back
On equitable terms
Or part with them F
On equitable terms;
And take for witness
Two persons from among you,
Endued with justice, ·· G
And establish the evidence
(As) before God. Such
ls the admonition given
To him who believes
H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A In God and the Last Day.
And for those who fear
God, He (ever) prepares
Away out,

B
3. And He provides for him
From (sources) he never
Could imagine. And if
Any one puts his trust
c In God, sufficient is (God)
For him. For God will
Surely accomplish His purpose :
Verily, for all things
Has God appointed
D
A due proportion.

4. Such of your women
As have passed the age
E Of monthly courses, for them
The prescribed period, if ye
Have any doubts, is
Three months, and for those
Who have no courses
F (It is the same):
For those who carry
(Life within their wombs),
Their period is until
G They deliver their burdens :
And for those who
Fear God, He will
Make their path easy.

H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1145
[KURIAN, J.]

5. That is the Command A
Of God, which He
Has sent down to you :
And if any one fears God,
He will remove his ills
B
From him, and will enlarge
His reward.

6. Let the women live
(In 'iddat) in the same c
Style as ye live,
According to your means :
Annoy them not, so as
To restrict them.
D
And if they carry (life
In their wombs), then
Spend (your substance) on them
Until they deliver
Their burden : and if E
They suckle your (offspring),
Give them their recompense :
And take mutual counsel
Together, according to
What is just and reasonable. F
And if ye find yourselves
In difficulties, let another
Woman suckle (the child)
·On the (father's) behalf. G

7. Let the man of means
Spend according to
· His means : and the man
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Whose resources are restricted,
Let him spend according
To what God has given him.
G{)d puts no burden
On any person beyond
B
What He has given him.
After a difficulty, .God
Will soon grant relief."
Verse 35 in Sura IV of the Quran speaks on arbitration for reconciliation-
C "35. If ye fear a breach
Between them twain,
Appoint (two) arbiters,
One from his family,
And the other from hers;
D
If they wish for peace,
God will cause
Their reconciliation:
For God hath full knowledge,
E And is acquainted
With all things."
Sura II contains the following verses pertaining to divorce:
"226.For those who take
An oath for abstention
F
From their wives,
A waiting for four months
Is ordained;
If then they return,
G God is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.

227.But if their intention
Is firm for divorce, ·
H
SHAYARA · BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1147
[KURIAN, J.]

God heareth A
And knoweth all things.

228. Divorced women
Shall wait concerning themse I' n
B
For three monthly periods.
NorisitlawfulforthelTI
To hide what God
Hath created in their wombs,
If they have faith c
In God and the Last Day.
And their husbands
Have the better right
To take them back
In that period, if D

They wish for reconciliation.
And women shall have rights
Similar to the rights
Against them, according
To what is equitable;
But men have a degree
(of advantage) over them.
And God is Exalted in Power,
Wise." F
"229. A divorce is only
Peifuissible twice: after that,
The parties should either hold
Together on equitable terms, G
· Or separate with kindness.
It is not lawful for you,
(Men), to take back
Any of your gifts (from your wives),
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A Except when both parties
Fear that they would be
Unable to keep the limits
· Ordained by God.
Ifye (judges) do indeed
B
Fear that they would be
Unable to keep the limits
Ordained by God,
There is ~lo blame on either
c Of them if she give
Something for her freedom.
These are the limits
Ordained by God;
So do not transgress them
D
If any do transgress
The limits ordained by God,
Such persons wrong
(Themselves as well as others).
E
230. So if a husband
Divorces his wife (irrevoc_ably),
He .cannot, after that,
Re-marry_ her until
F After she has married
Another husband and
He has divorced her.
In that case there is
G No blame on either of them
If they re-unite, provided
They feel that they
Can keep the limits
Ordained by God.
H
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1149
[KURIAN, J.]

Such other limits A
Ordained by God,
Which He makes plain
·To those who understand.

B
231. When ye divorce
Women, and they fulfill
The term oftheir ('/ddat),
Either take them back
On equitable terms c
Or set them free ·
On equitable terms;
But do not take them back
To injure them,{or) to take
Undue advantage; D
If anyone does that,
He wrongs his own soul.
Do not treat God's Signs
As a jest, E
But solemnly rehearse
God's favours on you,
And the fact that He
Sent down to you
The Book F
'·
And Wisdom,
For your instruction.
And fear God,
And know that God G
Is well acquainted
With all things. "6
6
Verses from the Holy Quran.as extracted above are taken from "The Holy Qur'an"
to
translated by Abdullah ,Yusuf Ali which was agreed be a fair translation by all
patties. H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 1Q. These instructive verses do not require any interpretative
exercise. They are clear and unambiguous as far as talaq is concerned.
The Holy Quran has attributed sanctity and permanence to matrimony.
However, in extremely unavoidable situations, talaq is permissible. But
an attempt for reconciliation and if it succeeds, then revocation are the
Quranic essential steps before talaq attains finality. 7 In triple talaq, this
B
door is closed, hence, triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy
Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat.
11. The above view has been endorsed by various High Courts,
finally culminating in Shamim Ara by this Court which has since been
C taken as the law for banning triple talaq. Interestingly, prior to Shamim
Ara, Krishna Iyer, J. in Fuzlunbi v. K Khader Vali and Another 8,
while in a three judge bench in this Court, made a very poignant observation
on the erroneous approach of Batchelor, J. in Sarabai v. Rabiabai 9 on
the famous comment "good in law, though bad in theology". To quote:
"20. Before we bid farewell to Fuzlunbi it is necessary to mention
D that Chief Justice Baharul Islam, in an elaborate judgment replete
with quotes from the Holy Quoran, has exposed the error of
early English authors and judges who dealt with talaq in Muslim
Law as good even if pronounced at whim or in tantnun, and
argued against the diehard view of Batchelor, J. that this view
E "is good in law, though bad in theology". Maybe, when the point
directly arises, the question will have to be considered by this
Court but enough unto the day the evil thereof and we do not
express our opinion on this question as it does not call for a
decision in the present case."

F 12. M<1re than two decades later, Shamim Ara has referred to,
as already noted above, the legal perspective across the country on the

7 Similar observations were made by the High Court ofGauhati through Baharul Islam,
J. in Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) I Gau LR 358 wherein he noted that
"though marriage under Muslim Law is only a civil contract yet the rights and
G responsibilities consequent upon it are of such importance to the welfare of humanity,
that a high de!!fee of sanctity is attached to it. But in spite of the sacredness of the
character ofthe marriage-tie, Islam recognizes the necessity. in exceptional circumstam.-es,
of keeping the way open for its dissolution". This view has been noted and approved
of in Shamim Ara at paragraph 13.
(Emphasis supplied)
'(1980) 4 sec 12s
H 9
!LR 30 Born 537
SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1151
[KURIAN, J.]

issue of triple talaq starting with the decision of the Calcutta High Court A
in Furzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee10 in 1878 and finally, after discussing
two decisions of the Gauhati High Court namely Jiauddin Ahmed v.
Anwara Begum 11 and Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khaligue Laskar12,
this Court held as follows-
. "13. There is yet another illuminating and weighty judicial opinion B
available in two decisions of the Gauhati High Court recorded
by Baharul Islam, J. (later a Judge of the Supreme Court of
India) sitting singly in Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981)
1 Gau LR 358 and later speaking for the Division Bench in Rukia
Khatun v.Abdul K~alique Laskar (1981) 1 Gau LR 375. In
Jiauddin Ahmed case a plea of previous divorce i.e. the husband C ·
having divorced the wife on some day much previous tp the date·
of filing of the written statement in the Court was taken and
upheld. The question posed before the High Court was whether
there has been valid talaq of the wife by the husband under the
Muslim law. The learned Judge observed that though marriage D
under the Muslim law is only a civil contract yet the rights and
responsibilities consequent upon it are of such importance to the
welfare of humanity, that a high degree of sanctity is attached to
it. But-inspite of the sacredness of the character of the marriage
. tie, Islam recognizes the necessity, in exceptional circumstances,
of keeping the way open for its dissolution (para.6). Quoting in · E
the judgment several Holy Ouranic verses and from
commentaries thereon by well-recognized scholars of great
eminence, the learned Judge expressed disapproval of the
statement that "the whimsical and capricious divorce by the
husband is good in law, though bad in theology" and observed F
that such a statement is based'on the concept that women were
chattel belonging to men. which the Holy Quran does not brook.
The correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy Quran is that .
talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by
attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by
two arbiters - one from the wife's family and the other from the G
husband's; if the attempts fail, 'talaq' may be effected. (para

'°!LR (1878) 4 Cal 588
11 (1981)1 GauLR358
12 (1981) I Gau LR 375
H
. I
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 13). In Rukia Khatun case, the Division Bench stated that the
correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy Ouran. is: (i) that
'talaq' must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be
preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband
and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her
family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts
B
fail. 'talaq' may be effected. The Division Bench expressly
recorded its dissent from the Calcutta and Bombay views which,
in their opinion, did not lay down the correct law.
14. We are in respectful agreement with the above said
observations made by the learned Judges of High Courts .... "
c
(Emphasis supplied)
13. There is also a fruitful reference to two judgments of the Kerala.
High Court - one of Justice Krishna Iyer in A. Yousuf Rawther v.
. Sowramma13 and the other of Justice V. Khalid in Mohd. Haneefa v.
0 Pathummal Beevi1 4 . No doubt, Sowaramma was not a case on triple
talaq, however, the issue has been discussed in the judgment in paragraph
7 which has also been quoted in Shamim Ara.
" .. The view that the Muslim husband enjoys an arbitrary,
unilateral power to inflict instant divorce does not accord with
E Islamic injunctions ... .It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male
enjoys, under the Quoranic law, unbridled authority to liquidate
the marriage. 'The whole Quoran expressly forbids a man to
seek pretexts for divorcing his wife, so long as she remains faithful
and obedient to him, "if they (namely, women) obey you, then do
not seek a way against them".' (Quoran IV:34). The Islamic
F law gives to the man primarily the faculty of dissolving the
marriage, if the wife, by her indocility or her bad character,
renders the married life unhappy; but in the absence of serious
reasons, no man can justify a divorce, either in the eye ofreligion
or the law. If he abandons his wife or puts her away in simple
caprice, he draws upon himself the divine anger, for the curse of
G
God, said the Prophet, rests ori him who repudiates his wife
capriciously." .... Commentators on the Quoran have rightly
observed - and this tallies with the law now administered in some
13 AIR 1971 Ker 261

H "1972 KLT 512
SHAYARA SANO v. · UNION OF INDIA. AND OTHERS 1153
[KURIAN, J.]
.
·- Muslim countries like Iraq -that the .husband must satisfy the A
court about the reasons for divorce. However, Muslim law, as
~~/"·

applied in India, has taken a course contrary to the spirit of what
the Prophet or the Holy Quoran laid. down and the same
misconception vitiates the law dealing with the wife's right to
divorce ... "
B
14. Khalid, J. has been more vocal in Mohd. Haneefa:
"5 .. Should Muslim wives suffer this tyranny for all times? Should
their personal law remain so cruel towards these unfortunate
wives? Can it not be amended suitably to alleviate their sufferings?
My judicial conscience is disturbed at this llionstrosity. Th~ c
question is whether the conscience of the leaders of public opinion
of the community will also be disturbed."
15. After a detailed discussion on the aforementioned cases, it
has been specifically held by this Court in Shamim Ara, at paragraph 15
that " ... there are no reasons substantiated in justification of talag_ and D
no J:llea or J:lroofthat an):'. effort at reconciliation J:lreceded the talag_." It
has to be particularly noted that this conclusion by the Bench in Shamim
Ara is made after "respectful agreement" with Jiauddin Ahmed that
"talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at
reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters~ one
from the wife's family and the other from the husband's; ifthe attempts E
Jail, 'talaq' may be effected." In the light of such specific findings as to
how triple talaq is bad in law on account of not following the Quranic
principles, it cannot be said that there is no ratio decidendi on triple
talaq in Shamim Ara.
16. Shamim Ara has since been understood by various High F
Courts across the country as the law deprecating triple talaq as it is
opposed to the tenets of the Holy Quran. Consequently, triple talaq lacks
the approval of Shariat.
17. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Zamrud Begum v.
K. Md. Haneef and another'\ is one of the first High Courts to affirm G
the view adopted in Shamim Ara. The High Court, after referring to
Shamim Ara and all the other decisions mentioned therein, held in
paragraphs 13 and 17 as follows:

-·
"(2003) 3 ALO 220
·H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "13. It is observed by the Supreme Court in the above said
decision that talaq may be oral or in .writing and it must be for a
reasonable cause. It must be preceded by an attempt of
reconciliation of husband and wife by two arbitrators one chosen
from the family of the wife and other by husband. If their attempts
fail then talaq may be effected by pronouncement. The said
B
procedure has not been followed. The Supreme Court has culled
out the same from Mui/a and the principles of Mahammedan
Law.
xxxx
c 17. lam of the considered view that the alleged talag is not a
.valid talaq as it is not in accordance with the principles laid do\vn
by the Supreme Court. If there is no valid talaq the relationship
of the wife with her husband still continues and she cannot be
treated as a divorced wife .... " .

D (Emphasis supplied)
18. In A. S. Parveen Akthar v. The Union oflndia 16 , the High ;--
Court of Madras was posed with the question on the validity and
constitutionality of Section 2 of the 1937 Act in so far as it recognises
triple talaq as a valid form of divorce. The Court referred to the provisions
E of the Quran, opinions of various eminent scholars oflslamic Law and
previous judicial pronouncements including Shamim Ara and came to
the following conclusion:
"45.Thus, the law with regard to talaq. as declared by the apex
Court, is that talag must be for a reasonable cause and must be
preceded by attempt at reconciliation between the husband and
F
the wife by two arbiters one chosen by wife's family and the
other from husband's family and it is only if their attempts fail,
talag may be effected.
xxxx
G 48.Having regard to the law now declared by the apex Court in
the case of Shamim Ara, 2002 AIR SCW 4162, talaq, in whatever
fo1m, must be for a reasonable cause, and must be preceded by
attempts for reconciliation by arbiters chosen from the families

16 2003-J-L.W. 370
H
SHAYARA BANO· v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1155
I [KURIAN, J.]
<'
( of each of the spouses, the petitioner's apprehension that A
notwithstanding absence of cause and no efforts having been
made to reconcile the spouses, this form of talaq is valid, is based
on a mislinderstanding of the law."
(Emphasis supplied)
As far as the constitutionality of Section 2 is concerned, the- Court B
refrained from going into the question in view of the decisions of this
Court in Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and Others 17 and
Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) and Ors. v. Union of
lndiai 8 ,
19. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in Manzoor Ahmad c
. Khan v.Saja & Ors. 19 , has also placed reliance on Shamim Ara. The
Court, at paragraph 11, noted that in Shamim Ara, the Apex Court relied
upon the passages from judgments of various High Courts "whieh are
eye openers for those who think that a Muslim man can divorce his wife
f merely at whim or on caprice." The Court finally held that the marriage D
between the parties did not stand dissolved.
20.In Ummer Farooque v; Naseema20 , Justices R Bhaskaran
and K.P. Balachandran of the High Co.urt of Kerala, after due
consideration of the prior decisions of the various Courts, in paragraphs
5 and 6 held that: ·
E
"5. aThe general impression as reflected in the decision of a
Division Bench of this Court inPathayi v. Moideen (1968 KLT
763) was that the only condition necessary for a valid exercise
· of the right of divorce by a husband is that he must be a major
and of sound mind at the that time and he can effect divorce F
' 'whenever he desires and no witnesses are necessary for
dissolution of the marriage and the moment when talaq is
· pronounced, dissolution of marriage is effected; it can be conveyed
by the husband to the wife and it need not be even addressed to .
her and it takes effect the moment it comes to her knowledge
etc·. But this can no longer be accepted in view of the authoritative ·G

11
(I981) 3 sec 689
" <I 997) 3 sec 573
"2010 (4) JKJ 380
20
2005 (4) KLT 565
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State.
of U.P. [2002 (3) KLT 537 (SC)].
6. The only thing to be further considered in this case is whether
the divorce alleged to have been effected by the husband by
pronouncement oftalaq on 23-7-1999 is proved or not. The mere
B pronouncement oftalag three times even in the presence of the
wife is not sufficient to effect a divorce under Mohammadan
Law. As held by the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara scase [2002
(3) KLT 537 (SC)]. there should be an attempt of mediation by
two mediators; one on the side of the husband and the other on
the side of the wife and only in case it was a failure that the
c husband is entitled to pronounce talag to divorce the wife ... "
(Emphasis supplied)
21.In Masroor Ahmed, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, held as
follows:
D "32. In these circumstances (the circumstances being :- (I) no
evidence of pronouncement of talaq; (2) no reasons and
justification of talaq; amd (3) no plea or proof that talaq was
preceded by efforts towards reconciliation), the Supreme Court
held that the marriage was not dissolved and that the liability of
the husband to pay maintenance continued. Thus, after Shamim
E Ara (supra), the position of the Jaw relating to talaq. where it is
contested by either spouse, is that, if it has to take effect, first of
all the pronouncement of talaq must be proved (it is not sufficient
to merely state in court in a written statement or in some other
pleading that talaq was given at some earlier point of time), then
F · reasonable cause must be shown as also the attempt at
reconciliation must be demonstrate<l to have taken place .... "
(Emphasis supplied)
22.As recently as in 2016, Mustaque, J. of the High Court of
Kerala in Nazeer@ Oyoor Nazeer v. Shemeema21 , has inter alia
G referred to Shamim Ara and has disapproved triple talaq.
, 23. Therefore, 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 Jaw.
.H 21 2017 (I) KLT 300
~.' ...:...,-!.. -~--

SHAYARA BANO v.. UNION OF INDIA· AND OTHERS 1157
7 [KURIAN, J.]

24. To freely profess, praptice and propagate religion of one's A
choice is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
That is subject only to the following- {l) public order, (2) health, (3)
·morality and (4) other provisions of Part III dealing with Fundamental
Rights. Under Article 25 (2) of the Constitution of India, the State is also
granted power to make law in two contingencies notwithstanding the
freedom granted under .ft.rticle 25(l). Article 25 (2) states that "nothing B
in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent
the State from making any law- (a) regulating ·or restricting any economic,
) ' fimmcial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all C
classes and sections of Hindus." Except to the above extent; the freedom
of religion under the Constitution of India is absolute and on this ·point, I
am in full agreement with the learned Chief Justice. However, on the
statement that triple talaq is an integral part ofthe religious practice, I .
respectfully disagree. Merely because a practice has continued for long, D
that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be
impermissible. The whole purpose of the 193 7 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 falaq.
Therefore, in any case, after the introduction of the 193 7 Act, no practice
against the.tenets ofQuran is permissible. Hence, there cannot be any E
Constitutional protection to such a practice and thus, my .disagreement
with the learned Chief Justice for the constitutional protection given to
triple talaq. I also have serious doubts as to whether, even under Article
142, the exercise of a Fundamental Right carr be injuncted. · ·
25. When issues of such nature come to the forefront, the discourse· F
often takes the form of pitting religion against other constitutional rights.
I believe that a reconciliation between the same is possible, but the process
of harmonizing different interests is within the powers of the legislature .
. Of course, this powei: has to be exercised within the constitutional
parameters without curbing the religious freedom guaranteed undeJ the
. Constitution oflndia. However, it is not for the Courts to direct for any
a·
legislation.
26. Fortunately, this Court has done its part in.Shamim Ara. I
expressly endorse and re-iterate the law declared in Shamim Ara. What

H
.
.~. {

1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.
.
,.

A is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that
.sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.
ORDER OF THE COURT
1. In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2
the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq is set aside.
B

Devika Gujral . Matters disposed of

c