Summary
By a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench set aside talaq-e-biddat, or instantaneous triple talaq. The opinions reaching that result gave different reasons: Nariman J. treated its statutory recognition as manifestly arbitrary, while Kurian J. found it contrary to the Quranic principles governing Shariat and endorsed Shamim Ara. The minority’s proposal for a temporary injunction pending legislation was not the Court’s operative majority disposition.
Issues
- Whether talaq-e-biddat could retain legal effect.
- How the distinct majority reasons related to the common disposition.
Held
- The operative order set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat by a majority of three to two; the decision did not invalidate every form of talaq. (¶¶ Order of the Court, 1, Nariman J., 3)
- In Nariman J.’s opinion, instantaneous and irrevocable dissolution without reconciliation was manifestly arbitrary. Section 2 of the 1937 Act was held void insofar as it recognised and enforced that practice; the separate discrimination ground was unnecessary on that reasoning. (¶ Nariman J., 55–57)
- Kurian J. disagreed that the 1937 Act regulated talaq for Article 14 review, but agreed that legislation could be challenged for arbitrariness. He denied legal sanctity to triple talaq because it violated Quranic principles, reiterating Shamim Ara; long practice did not establish constitutional protection. (¶¶ Kurian J., 4–5, 15–16, 23–26)
- The Chief Justice’s opinion proposed legislative consideration and an initially six-month injunction. That minority approach must be distinguished from the common order setting the practice aside. (¶¶ Khehar CJI, 197–201, Order of the Court, 1)
Result
Matters disposed of; talaq-e-biddat set aside by a 3:2 majority.