Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ
Shayara Bano – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 118/2016 | SMW(C) No. 2/2015 | W.P.(C) No. 288/2016 | W.P.(C) No. 327/2016 | W.P.(C) No. 665/2016 | W.P.(C) No. 43/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Mehta, Pinky Anand, Devashish Bharuka, Madhvi Diwan, Aishwarya Bhati, Amit Singh Chadha, Balaji Srinivasan, Arunava Mukherjee, Dilpreet Singh, Abhishek Bharti, Srishti Govil, Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam, Pratiksha Mishra, Prashant Murthy, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Priya Hingorani, Ashwani Upadhyaya, V.K. Biju, Ria Sachthey, Himanshu Singh Yadav, Nazia Ellahi Khan, Hema Sahu, Rakeesh Panicker, Abhay Pratap Singh, Subash Chandran, Ansu, Usha Nandini, Rajesh Payannoor, Nishad Livingston, Mukesh Jain, Farha Faiz, Rukhsana Choudhary
For the Respondents: Kapil Sibal, Ejaz Maqbool, Akriti Chaubey, Qurratulain, Zafar Khurshid, Sanchita Ain, Antony R. Julian, Azra Rehman, Raju Ramachandran, Shahid Nadeem, Mythili V.K. Thallam, Vikrani Aditya Narain, Ishwar Mohanty, H. Shanker, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mihir Dev, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Radhika Saxena, Mukesh Kumar Singh, L. Nidhi Ram Sharma, Sushma Singh, V. Giri, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Milan Laskar, Nomanul Haq, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Anand Grover, Waresha Farasat, Shadan Farasat, Tripti Tandon, Nitya Ramakrishna, Imtiaz Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham, Amra Moosavi, Harsh Pathak, Abha R. Sharma, Mohd. Nizam Pasha, Gautam Talukdar, Rajesh Inamdar, Aparna Bhat, Joshita Pai, Nikhelesh Ramachandran, Sumant Bharadwaj, Aviral Saxena, Ajmal Khan, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, M.M. Kashyap, Anis Ahmed Khan, Mohd. Naved Mian, Sandeep Garausa, Vishwa Pal Singh, Manoj Goel, Naman Kamboj, Wajeeh Shafiq, Zulfiker Ali P.S., M.R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Jogy Scaria, Amit Dubey, Rajul Shrivastav, Rajneesh Chuni, D. Khanna, K. Krishna Kumar, Preetam Shah, C. Rubavathi, B.S. Rajesh, Devesh Kr. Tripathi, Babita Kumar, Arun Kumar, Birendra Kumar Choudhary, Ajay Awasthi, Chirag, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Md. Irshad Hanif, Mohd. Adeel Siddiqui, Arif Ali, Neeraj Gupta, Muzahid Ahmed, E.C. Agrawala, Arif Mohd. Khan, Aftab Ali Khan, Garima Bajaj, Kailash Chand, Gaurav Yadava, Debasis Misra, O.P. Gaggar, Ravindra Bana, Rashmi Malhotra, Liz Mathew, R.P. Goyal, V.K. Shukla
The Supreme Court of India, by a 3:2 majority, declared the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' (instant triple talaq) as unconstitutional and set it aside.
Headnote:(A) Personal Law - Marriage and Divorce - Practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) - The practice of instant triple talaq is set aside by a majority of 3:2 as it is held to be invalid.
Issues: Whether the practice of talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) is legally sustainable and constitutional.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
divorce
- triple talaq
-
divorce
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India pronounced a Reportable judgment and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurred with the view taken by the Hon'ble the Chief justice of India. All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph expressed his opinion by pronouncing a separate reportable judgment.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman pronounced a separate reportable judgment and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the view expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq is set aside, in terms of three signed reportable judgments.
