Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others

16 Oct 2025 Landmark Judgements 16 Oct 2025

Case Summary: Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Shayara Bano, challenged the validity of the divorce pronounced by her husband under the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' (instant triple talaq). She argued that this form of divorce, being abrupt and unilateral, violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India and is not protected under Article 25.

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=2361241

Law Points Raised

1. Whether 'talaq-e-biddat' is part of Muslim personal law protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
2. Whether this practice violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
3. Whether the Shariat Act, 1937 gives statutory backing to 'talaq-e-biddat'.
4. Global perspective on the abolition of triple talaq.
5. Whether religious practices are subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi

- The majority held that 'talaq-e-biddat' is not essential to Islam and is unconstitutional. It was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
- The Court noted that even though it is practiced by some Muslims, it is considered sinful and lacks the approval of the Quran and Hadith.

Final Ruling

By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court declared the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' as unconstitutional and void ab initio.
It held that this form of divorce violates fundamental rights and is not an integral part of Islamic faith protected by Article 25.

Relevant Paragraph Numbers

- Petitioner's background and arguments: 1–10, 35–78
- Types and Quranic basis of talaq: 11–21, 128–139
- Global reforms: 28–29
- Judicial pronouncements and case law: 30–34, 115–127
- Article 25 vs. Fundamental Rights: 140–165
- International conventions and reform rationale: 183–190
- Final declaration by the Court: 191–201

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=2361241

Article Details
  • Published: 16 Oct 2025
  • Updated: 16 Oct 2025
  • Category: Landmark Judgements
Subscribe for updates

Get curated case law updates and product releases straight to your inbox.

Join Newsletter