Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors., 2017

Posted by

Lexful

On December 3, 2025

This Case Analysis is written by Hitesh Bhootra, he is a 3rd-year LL.B. student at Aishwarya College of Education and Law. He also serves as an author at Lexful Legal.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, Uday Umesh Lalit, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Kurian Joseph, Jagdish Singh Khehar

Citation: AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4609

Date of Judgment: 22 August 2017

Facts from Shayara’s Side:

Shayara was married to Rizwan Ahmed for about 15 years and has two children.
One day, her husband, Rizwan, ended the marriage by pronouncing “talaq” three times.
Her husband divorced her through Talaq‑e‑biddat by pronouncing talaq three times, that is, instant and irrevocable triple talaq.
Talaq was done without prior attempts at reconciliation/mediation and without the consent of Shayara.
Later, with fear about her children’s future, she went to the Supreme Court not just to undo her own talaq but to challenge the constitutional validity of talaq‑e‑biddat and polygamy under Muslim personal law as violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25.

Facts from husband’s side:

The husband argues that he used a mode of divorce long recognized in his community’s personal law, which is followed by many: talaq‑e‑biddat (by saying talaq three times), which was treated as ending a marriage.
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) supports Shayara’s husband.
The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board decides to fight the case and supports Shayara’s husband.
AIMPLB supports her husband because they saw it as bigger than one marriage; for them, it is framed as Muslims’ religious autonomy.
Muslims’ religious autonomy: Muslims have followed these rules, like Talaq‑e‑biddat, for centuries.

Issues before the Supreme Court:

Does triple talaq (talaq‑e‑biddat) violate Article 14 (manifest arbitrariness) and Articles 15 and 21 (discrimination and dignity of women)?
Is triple talaq (talaq‑e‑biddat) an essential religious practice under Islam protected by Article 25?

Arguments of Shayara:

Shayara argues that triple talaq leaves a woman instantly or suddenly without her husband, home, or any financial security, often with their children.
She argues that this destroys her dignity and security under Article 21.
She argued that what triple talaq looks like is a woman waking up to find a letter or a text or a phone call and suddenly losing everything, only the husband can do this, not the wives. A wife cannot end her marriage in three words, but a husband can. That is discrimination on the grounds of sex and pure inequality, which shows direct violation of Articles 14 and 15.
Shayara brought scholars and material to show that the Quran’s divorce process is gradual, with counselling and waiting for periods.
Triple talaq is seen even within the Hanafi tradition as sinful or disapproved.
She highlighted that many Muslim‑majority countries had already removed or abolished triple talaq.
She pointed to the Shariat Act 1937, which says Muslim personal law will be the “Rule of decision” on marriage, divorce, etc., and she argues that this practice gives practices like triple talaq a statutory footing.
Once Parliament has told courts, “This is the rule you must use,” “Law in force” under Article 13 can be reviewed and must respect fundamental rights.

Arguments of AIMPLB & Shayara’s Husband:

They argued that Muslim personal law is based on religious texts and has the status of “Personal law” rather than “Law in force”; therefore, it is not amenable to Part III Fundamental rights of the Constitution.
They submitted that triple talaq is part of the Hanafi school of their jurisprudence, and thus, a religious practice is protected by Article 25.
They argue that any reform should be left to Parliament, not to the judiciary, to avoid affecting religious autonomy.
They argued that even if triple talaq looked harsh, the Constitution should not let judges rewrite faith‑based rules, so the court cannot interfere with religious practices.

Judgement: (5-Judge Constitution Bench)

Delivered on 22 August 2017

Split 3:2 Majority.

Justices Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit & Kurian Joseph held that:

By applying Article 14, they said Triple Talaq is unconstitutional. It gives one-sided powers to the husband. Triple talaq lets a husband destroy a marriage instantly without reconciliation & without any procedure; this was clearly arbitrary and so void.
Quranic verses to say that the only valid form of divorce is gradual, with procedure & reconciliation, so triple talaq, like an instant one-shot divorce with no scope for repair, cannot be treated as part of Shariat law and cannot claim protection under an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
They noted that triple talaq is widely criticised in Islamic countries and has been abolished in many Muslim countries.
They held that: The Shariat Act, 1937, to the extent it recognizes and enforces triple talaq, is void under Article 13 because it violates fundamental rights.

Minority judgment:

S. Abdul Nazeer, Jagdish Singh Khehar held that:

Treated Muslim law as not being law under Article 13 and therefore beyond direct fundamental rights.
They considered Talaq-e-biddat to be a part of long-standing personal law & hence protected under Article 25 as an essential practice for religion.
They proposed an injunction staying the practice for 6 months to enable Parliament to legislate.

Ratio decidendi:

Triple talaq is unconstitutional because it is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14.
Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice; the Quran does not support instant divorce without following the procedure, so Article 25 does not protect it.
Practice violates the dignity & equality of women, therefore it is inconsistent with Articles 14, 15, and 21.

Impact of judgement:

Triple talaq became void and unenforceable.
Parliament further passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which declares triple talaq void & illegal and also declares the pronouncement of “talaq-e-biddat” as a cognizable criminal offense with up to 3 years imprisonment and fine.
Provides for allowance and custody of minor children for the affected wife.

The court can strike down unconstitutional personal laws.