Triple talaq held invalid as arbitrary divorce practice and not protected as an essential religious practice.

Instant triple talaq was held invalid as a form of divorce because it was capricious, irrevocable and denied any meaningful chance of reconciliation. The Court further held that Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it recognized and enforced triple talaq, was void to that extent because a pre-Constitution law may be tested against fundamental rights. Triple talaq was also found not to be protected by Article 25, as it was not treated as an essential religious practice and could not override equality and dignity guarantees.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether talaq-e-biddat or triple talaq was a valid form of dissolution of marriage and was protected as part of Muslim personal law; (ii) Whether Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 conferred statutory recognition on triple talaq and subjected it to challenge under Part III of the Constitution; (iii) Whether triple talaq was protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether talaq-e-biddat or triple talaq was a valid form of dissolution of marriage and was protected as part of Muslim personal law.

Analysis: The majority held that instant and irrevocable divorce by triple talaq was capricious, deprived the spouses of any meaningful chance of reconciliation, and was contrary to the Quranic understanding of divorce. It was treated as a historically prevalent practice among Sunni Hanafis, but not one that could survive constitutional scrutiny where it was manifestly arbitrary and destructive of marital stability without reasonable cause.

Conclusion: Triple talaq was held to be invalid in law and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 conferred statutory recognition on triple talaq and subjected it to challenge under Part III of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that the 1937 Act made Muslim personal law the rule of decision in matters of marriage and dissolution of marriage, including talaq, and therefore recognized and enforced the form of talaq followed by Sunni Hanafis. As the Act was a pre-Constitution law, it fell within the expression laws in force and could be tested against fundamental rights. On that basis, the extent to which it recognized triple talaq was liable to be struck down.

Conclusion: Section 2 was held void to the extent that it recognized and enforced triple talaq.

Issue (iii): Whether triple talaq was protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that although personal law enjoys constitutional protection, Article 25 does not protect a practice that is manifestly arbitrary in its operation against women. Triple talaq was not treated as an essential religious practice that could defeat the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

Conclusion: Triple talaq was not protected by Article 25.

Final Conclusion: By majority, the practice of instant triple talaq was invalidated and the statutory recognition of that practice under the 1937 Act was struck down to the extent indicated, resulting in relief to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Constitution law that recognizes and enforces a practice of divorce which is instant, irrevocable, capricious, and manifestly arbitrary can be struck down under Article 14, and such a practice is not shielded by Article 25 as an essential religious practice.

---