India News

Triple Talaq verdict: When Chief Justice JS Khehar’s opinion was overruled

Published

9 years ago

August 22, 2017

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar, whose term in office ends on August 27, may have headed the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that in its historic judgment, on Tuesday, banned the practice of instant triple talaq among Muslims but he, along with Justice S Abdul Nazeer, had favoured that the Union government and not the apex court should decide on the validity of Talaq-ul-Biddat

For a brief while on Tuesday morning, as the Supreme Court began pronouncing its historic verdict on the validity of Talaq-ul-Biddat, it felt as if the five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, JS Khehar, did not want to take responsibility of banning the highly controversial practice itself but instead have the Centre and Parliament decide on the move.

It was only when the final order was read out that it emerged that the verdict was split and instant triple talaq was to be banned immediately, and Chief Justice Khehar’s opinion of letting the government pass a law to this effect was in a minority- supported by only one other member of the Bench, Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

Here’s a glimpse of what different members of the 5-judge Bench said in their order on the landmark case.

Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer

We have arrived at the conclusion, that ‘talaq-e-biddat’, is a matter of ‘personal law’ of Sunni Muslims, belonging to the Hanafi school. It constitutes a matter of their faith. It has been practiced by them, for at least 1400 years. We have examined whether the practice satisfies the constraints provided for under Article 25 of the Constitution, and have arrived at the conclusion, that it does not breach any of them. We have also come to the conclusion, that the practice being a component of ‘personal law’ has the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution.
We were obliged to keep reminding ourselves, of the wisdoms of the framers of the Constitution, who placed matters of faith in Part III of the Constitution… We cannot nullify and declare as unacceptable in law, what the Constitution decrees us, not only to protect, but also to enforce.
Such a call of conscience, as the petitioners (demanding ban on triple talaq) desire us to accept, may well have a cascading effect. We say so, because the contention of the learned Attorney General was, that ‘talaq-e-ahsan’ and ‘talaq-e-hasan’ were also liable to be declared unconstitutional, for the same reasons as have been expressed with reference to ‘talaq-e-biddat’. According to the learned Attorney General, the said forms of talaq also suffered from the same infirmities as ‘talaq-e-biddat’. The practices of ‘polygamy’ and ‘halala’ amongst Muslims are already under challenge before us. It is not difficult to comprehend, what kind ofchallenges would be raised by rationalists, assailing practices of different faiths on diverse grounds, based on all kinds of enlightened sensibilities.
The wisdom emerging from judgments rendered by this Court is unambiguous, namely, that while examining issues falling in the realm of religious practices or ‘personal law’, it is not for a court to make a choice of something which it considers as forward looking or non-fundamentalist. It is not for a court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive or regressive. Article 25 obliges all Constitutional Courts to protect ‘personal laws’ and not to find fault therewith. Interference in matters of ‘personal law’ is clearly beyond judicial examination. The judiciary must therefore, always exercise absolute restraint, no matter how compelling and attractive the opportunity to do societal good may seem.
A perusal of the consideration recorded by us reveals that the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ has been done away with, by way of legislation in a large number of egalitarian States, with sizeable Muslim population and even by theocratic Islamic States… There can be no doubt, and it is our definitive conclusion, that the position can only be salvaged by way of legislation…The Union of India has appeared before us in support of the cause of the petitioners…Unfortunately, the Union seeks at our hands, what truly falls in its own.
We therefore hereby direct, the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to ‘talaq-e-biddat’. We hope and expect, that the contemplated legislation will also take into consideration advances in Muslim ‘personal law’ – ‘Shariat’, as have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by theocratic Islamic States. When the British rulers in India provided succor to Muslims by legislation, and when remedial measures have been adopted by the Muslim world, we find no reason, for an independent India, to lag behind.
Till such time as legislation in the matter is considered, we are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing ‘talaq-e-biddat’ as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant injunction, shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six months. If the legislative process commences before the expiry of the period of six months, and a positive decision emerges towards redefining ‘talaq-e-biddat’– as one, or alternatively, if it is decided that the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ be done away with altogether, the injunction would continue, till legislation is finally enacted. Failing which, the injunction shall cease to operate.

Justice Kurian Joseph

The Holy Quran has attributed sanctity and permanence to matrimony. However, in extremely unavoidable situations, talaq is permissible. But an attempt for reconciliation and if it succeeds, then revocation are the Quranic essential steps before talaq attains finality.51 In triple talaq, this door is closed, hence, triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat.
I find it extremely difficult to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the practice of triple talaq has to be considered integral to the religious denomination in question and that the same is part of their personal law.
I expressly endorse and re-iterate the law declared in Shamim Ara (another case in which triple talaq was declared invalid). What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.

Justices Rohinton F Nariman and UU Lalit

It is clear that this form of Talaq (Talaq-ul-Biddat) is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void.

The final order signed by the 5-judge Bench:

In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2, the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq is set aside.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Centre sends 3 letters to Punjab government after anti-drug activist’s killing

The Centre has sought reports from the Punjab government on three incidents linked to allegations surrounding drug-related activities, including the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota.

Published

4 hours ago

October 16, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Union government has sought detailed explanations from the Punjab government regarding three incidents linked to concerns over drug-related activities in the state. The move follows the killing of anti-drug activist Parvinder Singh Jhota in Mansa and comes amid renewed scrutiny of the state’s drug problem and law-and-order situation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent three letters to the Punjab chief secretary on October 16, with copies to the state’s director general of police. The communications sought information about Jhota’s killing, the fatal attack on Bikramjit Singh in Gurdaspur district, and the reported suicide of Gulzar Singh in September.

What the Centre’s three letters cover

The first letter concerned the October 13 killing of Parvinder Singh, popularly known as Jhota, who was known for raising concerns about drug abuse and alleged illegal sales of intoxicating substances in Punjab.

The ministry sought a comprehensive factual report on the incident and details of the steps taken by the state government following his death. It also asked about action taken on the Union government’s Vision Document on Narcotics Control for 2026–2029.

The document outlines measures to strengthen anti-narcotics enforcement, including dedicated anti-narcotics task forces, financial investigations, prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and action against transnational drug networks.

The second letter concerned the attack in Mari Panwan village in Gurdaspur district, in which Bikramjit Singh died and Nishan Singh and Gurmukh Singh were critically injured.

According to accounts cited in the report, the three men had objected to alleged drug peddling in their village before being attacked with sharp-edged weapons. However, police have denied that the incident was motivated by drug-related disputes and said an investigation was underway. Bikramjit’s relatives have also disputed the police account that the murder followed a dispute over a mobile phone.

The third letter sought details about Gulzar Singh’s death on September 8. The ministry referred to reports that he had raised concerns about the availability of synthetic drugs and had faced pressure and harassment from the local village panchayat. These allegations form part of the circumstances the Centre has asked the state government to examine and report on.

Amit Shah raises questions over Punjab’s law and order

Union Home Minister Amit Shah also raised concerns about the situation in Punjab, referring to the challenges posed by drugs, gangsterism and organised crime.

Questioning the Bhagwant Mann-led government over public safety, Shah called for action against the drug trade, protection for young people and strict measures against criminals.

The Centre’s requests place the three incidents under scrutiny, although the alleged links between the attacks or deaths and opposition to drug-related activities remain subject to the specific circumstances and investigations in each case.

India News

Mallikarjun Kharge seeks all-party meeting with PM Modi on delimitation

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the fourth time, seeking an all-party meeting on delimitation. He also flagged the 64-day delay in proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session.

Published

5 hours ago

October 16, 2026

APNLive Desk

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has renewed his demand for an all-party meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the government’s proposed delimitation exercise, arguing that political parties must have adequate time to examine the proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

In a letter to the prime minister on Friday, October 16, Kharge also raised concerns over what he described as an unprecedented delay in formally proroguing Parliament’s Monsoon Session. He said 64 days had passed since the session was adjourned sine die on August 13, while both Houses were yet to be prorogued.

Kharge seeks wider consultations on delimitation

Kharge said he had first written to Modi on April 11, requesting an all-party meeting before the government introduced a constitutional amendment bill concerning delimitation.

According to the Congress president, the government did not convene the requested meeting before making the bills public late on April 14 and calling a special session of Parliament on April 16.

The constitutional amendment bill on delimitation subsequently failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha on April 17.

Kharge said he had again written to the prime minister on July 16 and August 27, reiterating his demand for consultations. In his latest letter, he made the request for the fourth time, asking the government to discuss its revised proposals with political parties before finalising them for parliamentary consideration.

The Congress chief stressed that political parties should receive sufficient time to discuss the proposals among themselves and with other stakeholders.

He also cautioned the government against attempting to push through another far-reaching constitutional amendment without adequate deliberation.

Congress raises concern over Parliament session

Apart from delimitation, Kharge highlighted the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session, which was adjourned sine die on August 13.

He described the 64-day gap as unprecedented and linked the issue to concerns about possible government plans to bring fresh delimitation proposals before Parliament.

Prorogation formally ends a parliamentary session. Kharge’s letter raised the issue while urging the government to ensure wider political consultation before proceeding with any new legislative proposals.

Jairam Ramesh shares Kharge’s letter

Congress general secretary for communications Jairam Ramesh also drew attention to the letter by sharing it on X.

Ramesh said Kharge had written to Modi about the delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session and the possibility of further government moves on delimitation.

The Congress’s latest demand centres on securing time for political parties to examine the government’s proposals before they are finalised for consideration in Parliament.

India News

Abhijeet Dipke detained ahead of CJP’s national flag march in Delhi

Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on October 16, 2026, shortly before a planned national flag march. The proposed rally followed the judicial custody of two CJP members who had waved the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar.

Published

6 hours ago

October 16, 2026

APNLive Desk

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke was detained by Delhi Police on Friday, October 16, shortly before he was due to participate in a planned national flag march in the capital.

According to the report, police personnel reached Dipke’s residence and detained him just minutes before the proposed ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ rally. The march was planned in Delhi amid tensions over restrictions on demonstrations and the detention of CJP members.

The latest detention marks the second time Dipke has been detained within a week. He was previously detained after arriving at Delhi’s airport from Mumbai for a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of manipulation during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Why was the national flag march planned?

One of the main triggers for the planned march was the judicial custody of two CJP members, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.

The two were sent to five-day judicial custody after entering Jantar Mantar while waving the national flag on October 13. The incident occurred a day after the historic protest site was denotified as a protest location, according to the report.

The proposed march was called ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’. CJP planned the rally amid its continuing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.

The allegations concerning voter-list manipulation remain allegations and should not be presented as established findings.

Police had issued a notice before the detention

Before detaining Dipke, Delhi Police personnel visited his residence and served him a notice advising him against holding the proposed march.

The notice was issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), according to the report. It stated that prohibitory orders were in force in the Connaught Place area.

The notice also cited the absence of permission from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) for the proposed Tiranga Yatra. It warned that proceeding with the march despite the restrictions would be considered a violation of the law.

The detention came amid heightened attention to the proposed gathering in central Delhi and the dispute over whether the planned march could proceed under the prevailing restrictions.

A second detention in a week

Dipke’s latest detention followed his earlier detention at Delhi airport after he arrived from Mumbai for a planned protest over the SIR exercise and allegations concerning voter-list manipulation.

The latest episode adds to the ongoing confrontation between CJP and the authorities over its proposed demonstrations. The immediate context for the October 16 march was the judicial custody of two party members following their appearance at Jantar Mantar with the national flag.

The report does not establish that the allegations of electoral manipulation are proven, nor does it provide a final judicial determination of the dispute surrounding the planned march.