Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors.
Background
Shayara Bano, married for 15 years, was divorced by her husband through an instant "triple talaq" (talaq-e-biddat): a one-sided pronouncement of divorce by the husband without any process of reconciliation. She petitioned the Supreme Court arguing this practice violated her fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and dignity. Her case was heard together with a suo motu petition ("Muslim Women's Quest for Equality") and several other women's petitions raising the same challenge.
Decision Breakdown
By a 3:2 majority, the Court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat. Justices Nariman and Lalit held that the practice is "manifestly arbitrary" because it allows a marriage to be ended capriciously and irrevocably with no chance for reconciliation, making it violative of Article 14 and void as a "law in force" under Article 13(1). Justice Kurian Joseph, concurring in the result on a separate ground, held that triple talaq is sinful under Islamic theology itself and therefore cannot claim protection as an essential religious practice under Article 25. Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer dissented, holding the practice fell within protected personal law and instead directed a six-month injunction against its use while asking Parliament to legislate on the subject.
Lesson Learnt
Even a religiously-rooted personal-law practice can be struck down by courts if it is "manifestly arbitrary" and breaches fundamental rights: the ruling led directly to Parliament's subsequent law criminalising instant triple talaq. For the ordinary citizen, this case illustrates how the right to equality can override even long-standing social practices.