English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

9 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

Farooq, Omar Abdullah to meet upset NC MLAs amid party discontent

Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah are set to meet National Conference MLAs who have raised concerns following the recent Cabinet expansion in Jammu and Kashmir.

Published

3 hours ago

on

November 6, 2026

By

Omar Abdullah

Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah are set to meet a group of party legislators who have raised concerns following the recent expansion of the Union Territory’s Council of Ministers.

The meeting is scheduled in Srinagar on Friday as the party leadership attempts to address grievances raised by several NC MLAs. Reports indicate that the legislators had met separately ahead of their interaction with the Abdullahs to finalise the issues they wanted to raise. 

The developments come days after Omar Abdullah expanded his Cabinet, inducting four new ministers and dropping Independent MLA Satish Sharma from the Council of Ministers. The reshuffle has led to discontent among sections of the ruling National Conference, particularly among legislators who were not included in the new ministerial team. 

What the NC MLAs want

The legislators have raised concerns about the functioning of the party and government, including the need for greater authority for elected representatives, stronger party organisation at the grassroots level and better implementation of commitments made to voters.

Some members of the group have also demanded changes involving ministers and the Chief Minister’s advisor Nasir Aslam Wani. Earlier reports said the legislators had prepared a memorandum outlining their grievances and demands. 

The group has stressed that its concerns are aimed at strengthening the party rather than destabilising the government. One legislator described the focus as improving the party’s functioning at the grassroots level and ensuring that MLAs are empowered to address public grievances.

Cabinet expansion triggered tensions

The latest discontent followed Omar Abdullah’s Cabinet expansion, under which four new ministers were inducted. They include Ali Mohammad Sagar, Mir Saifullah, Shamima Firdous and Altaf Ahmad Kaloo. Independent MLA Satish Sharma was dropped from the Council of Ministers. 

The Cabinet changes had already prompted concerns among some senior legislators over ministerial representation and the functioning of the party organisation. The disagreement has since developed into a broader discussion about the role and empowerment of elected representatives.

The meeting with Farooq and Omar Abdullah is therefore significant as the party leadership seeks to engage directly with the legislators and address their concerns.

Continue Reading

India News

Hardeep Singh Puri elected unopposed to Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh

Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has been elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh after the nominations of two other candidates, including a Congress-backed nominee, were rejected.

Published

16 hours ago

on

November 5, 2026

By

Hardeep Puri

Union Petroleum Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Hardeep Singh Puri has been elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh. The announcement was made on Thursday after the deadline for withdrawal of nominations ended, leaving Puri as the only candidate in the contest.

Puri’s election followed the rejection of nomination papers filed by two other candidates, Kante Sayanna and Rajkumar Lohani, who was backed by the Opposition Congress. Their nominations were rejected during the scrutiny process, making Puri the sole candidate remaining in the fray.

Returning Officer Umesh Sharma formally declared Puri elected to the Upper House of Parliament. Madhya Pradesh BJP president Hemant Khandelwal collected his certificate of election from the returning officer in the presence of party MLA Rameshwar Sharma.

Why Hardeep Singh Puri was elected unopposed

The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha bypoll witnessed three candidates initially entering the contest. However, the nomination papers of the two other candidates did not clear scrutiny.

Kante Sayanna and Congress-backed candidate Rajkumar Lohani had their nominations rejected during the examination of election papers. With both candidates out of the contest, Puri remained the only candidate.

As a result, the returning officer declared him elected unopposed on the final day of withdrawal of nominations on November 5.

The bypoll, if required, had been scheduled to take place on November 12.

Why the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha seat fell vacant

The by-election became necessary following the resignation of former Union minister L Murugan from the Rajya Sabha last month.

Murugan’s departure created a vacancy in the Upper House from Madhya Pradesh. His original term was scheduled to continue until April 2, 2030.

The BJP subsequently nominated Hardeep Singh Puri as its candidate for the by-election.

Puri, a former diplomat who later entered politics, currently serves as the Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Continue Reading

India News

Amit Shah challenges Rahul Gandhi to debate SIR in Parliament

Amit Shah responded to Rahul Gandhi’s public debate challenge by inviting him to discuss the SIR exercise in Parliament. He also criticised the Congress over its demand for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

Published

20 hours ago

on

November 5, 2026

By

Union Home Minister Amit Shah has challenged Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to take up his demand for a public debate with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Parliament, saying the government is ready to convene a special session to discuss the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

Addressing a rally in Haryana’s Karnal, Shah directly responded to Gandhi’s challenge to the Prime Minister, asking the Congress leader to write to PM Modi if he wanted a discussion.

“I want to challenge Rahul Gandhi directly. You challenge PM Modi for a discussion? If you want a discussion, simply write a letter to PM Modi. We are ready to convene a special session of Parliament to discuss the SIR exercise… Come and debate in Parliament,” Shah said.

The remarks came two days after Rahul Gandhi issued another public debate challenge to the Prime Minister.

On November 3, Gandhi wrote in a post on X that PM Modi could choose any stage or venue for a discussion. He proposed debating allegations concerning who was anti-national and who had connections with foreign forces, adding that the media and the country’s youth should also be present.

Amit Shah targets Congress over SIR controversy

During his address, Shah also criticised the Congress over its demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Referring to the 2014, 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Home Minister argued that the Congress had lost despite no Special Intensive Revision exercise being conducted during those elections.

“Where was the SIR in 2014? You were completely wiped out even then. Where was SIR in 2019? You lost. There was no SIR in 2024 either, yet you lost again,” he said.

Shah also referred to the elections in Haryana and Maharashtra, claiming that there was no SIR exercise in either state when the Congress suffered electoral defeats.

He accused the Opposition of disrupting parliamentary proceedings and organising protests on the streets instead of allowing Parliament to function.

Shah criticises Rahul Gandhi over protests

The Home Minister further alleged that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress were creating disorder through street protests and parliamentary boycotts.

Shah said BJP workers would give a “fitting reply” if Gandhi continued to mobilise crowds on the streets.

He also questioned Gandhi’s claim to have mobilised large numbers of people for a rally in Delhi, alleging that the venue had a capacity of 70,000 and was still half empty despite an appeal to bring 10 lakh people.

“The people of the country have consistently defeated Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party. The people of the country are not with you or the Opposition alliance,” Shah said.

Amit Shah raises questions over Rahul Gandhi’s foreign visits

Shah also sought details about Rahul Gandhi’s foreign visits, arguing that people had a right to know about them.

“You’re Leader of Opposition… People have the right to know,” the Home Minister said.

His remarks came amid the continuing political confrontation between the BJP and Congress over the SIR exercise, electoral processes and the Opposition’s criticism of the Election Commission.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com