English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

8 years ago

on

JS Khehar

[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.

Kurian

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

2 hours ago

on

February 3, 2026

By

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

2 hours ago

on

February 3, 2026

By

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

6 hours ago

on

February 3, 2026

By

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com