Shayara Bano v. Union of India
2017 SCC OnLine SC 963 • Constitutional Law • Personal Law • Articles 14 & 25 • Essential Practices
Quick Summary
After 15 years of marriage, Ms. Shayara Bano was divorced by instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). She challenged this practice, along with polygamy and nikah halala. A five-judge bench, by 3:2, held that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional. The Court said only essential religious practices get protection under Article 25. Triple talaq did not pass that test. Parliament was asked to make a law.
- Triple talaq struck down (3:2).
- Essential practices test applied to Article 25.
- Parliament urged to legislate.
Issues
- Is talaq-e-biddat an essential practice of Islam protected by Article 25?
- Does instant triple talaq violate fundamental rights (equality, dignity, due process)?
Rules
- Essential Religious Practices (ERP): Only those practices that form the core of a religion are protected by Article 25.
- Fundamental Rights Review: Personal law claims are tested against constitutional guarantees like Article 14 (equality) and dignity.
Facts (Timeline)
View Timeline2016: Ms. Bano’s marriage ends by instant triple talaq.
She files a writ in the Supreme Court against talaq-e-biddat, polygamy, and nikah halala.
Feb 16, 2017: Court calls for written submissions from parties and bodies, including AIMPLB.
Union of India and women’s rights groups support Ms. Bano’s plea; AIMPLB claims ERP and non-justiciability of uncodified personal law.
Five-judge bench delivers a split verdict (3:2) on triple talaq.
Arguments
Union of India & Petitioners
- Instant triple talaq is arbitrary; violates equality and dignity.
- Not an essential practice; many Islamic schools discourage or disapprove it.
- Courts can test personal law when it affects fundamental rights.
AIMPLB & Respondents
- Personal law is uncodified; outside constitutional review.
- Triple talaq forms part of religious practice and autonomy.
- Courts should not rewrite faith-based rules.
Judgment
View Visual- By 3:2 majority, talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) declared unconstitutional.
- Practice did not qualify as an essential religious practice under Article 25.
- Court urged Parliament to enact a law to address triple talaq.
Ratio (Core Principle)
Only essential religious practices are protected by Article 25. A practice that is arbitrary and not core to the faith cannot defeat fundamental rights like equality and dignity.
Why It Matters
- Strengthens protection for women’s rights in family law.
- Clarifies the Essential Religious Practices test.
- Shows constitutional review can reach personal law when rights are at stake.
Key Takeaways
- 3:2 Majority: Triple talaq unconstitutional.
- ERP Filter: Only core practices get Article 25 cover.
- Rights First: Equality and dignity prevail over arbitrariness.
- Parliament’s Role: Law requested to regulate the area.
- Personal Law & Review: Not immune from constitutional tests.
- Exam Tip: Map ERP → Rights impact → Majority holding.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: BANO = Basic? — Actually Not, Obvious
- Basic? Ask if practice is essential to the religion.
- Actually Not: Triple talaq failed the essentiality test.
- Obvious: Arbitrary practice cannot override equality and dignity.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Is instant triple talaq an essential religious practice and constitutionally valid?
Rule
Article 25 protects only essential practices; practices failing equality/dignity can be struck down.
Application
Triple talaq was arbitrary and not shown as essential; it harmed women’s rights.
Conclusion
Unconstitutional; Parliament to frame suitable law.
Glossary
- Talaq-e-biddat
- Instant triple talaq—divorce in one sitting or instant communication.
- Essential Religious Practices
- Practices forming the core of a religion; only these get Article 25 protection.
- Article 25
- Freedom of religion—subject to public order, morality, health, and other rights.
- Article 14
- Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now