Triple talaq, also called talaq-e-bid’ah, is an Islamic practice where a Muslim husband can divorce his wife by repeating the word ‘talaq’ three times in Arabic. Law pertaining to this issue has been subject to much controversy and has come under intense legal scrutiny in India, leading to its eventual proscription.
Marriage in Islam is considered a contract between individuals, and as such, it contains provisions for its dissolution. In traditional Islamic law, talaq (divorce initiated by the husband), khula (divorce initiated by the wife), and mutual consent are recognized as three forms of divorce. Triple talaq is one form of talaq where the husband utters “talaaq” thrice at once, thus dissolving the marriage instantly.
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 allowed for the application of Muslim personal laws on Muslims in relation to marriage, divorce, and family matters. Therefore, under this system, Muslims were able to resort to triple talaqs whenever they wanted.
Opponents argue that triple talaq goes against equality principles, thereby denying Muslim women their human rights. It has also been criticized for:
In India, numerous legal challenges were faced by the unethical and immoral practice of granting triple talaq to a woman. There were cases where people gave talaq to their wives over calls or text messages, raising the question, “Do Human Rights really exist or are they mere words written in the books?”. A Muslim woman's right to life, right to a dignified life, and sustainability was a sham or matter of concern. These controversial questions forced the judiciary as well as legislation to take matters into their hands and provide a remedy through passing prominent judgments in favor of those women who are victims of this custom, as well as legislative action to provide a more permanent solution through laws.
One of the most significant cases challenging triple talaq was Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), where Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman, challenged the practice after her husband divorced her using triple talaq. The Supreme Court of India took up the case, considering whether the practice violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
There are several prominent cases that deal with divorces and maintenance of women who were granted divorce. A notable case was Shayara Bano v. Union of India. On August 22, 2017, the apex court delivered a landmark verdict in the Shayara Bano case, declaring Talaq-e-biddat or the practice of triple talaq or instant talaq as unconstitutional by a 3-2 majority and asked the legislature to make strict laws against the practice of Triple Talaq. The judgment stated the following grounds:
After this remarkable landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India, the Indian government introduced The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, which codified the provisions of prohibiting the practice of triple talaq in India.
The Parliament of India passed the bill, and it received Presidential assent on July 31, 2019, becoming law. The following are some of the important provisions under this Act:
The outlawing or prohibition of triple talaq had mixed reactions. Supporters considered it a forward movement towards gender justice and equality for Muslim women, claiming it was an intervention necessary to safeguard women’s rights.
On the other hand, opponents to the legislation termed it an infringement on their religious freedom. Many Muslim organizations and leaders claimed that reforms should come from within communities themselves rather than be imposed by outside forces like state machineries or courts.
The abolition of the practice of triple talaq has been viewed as a significant step by Indian society, offering Muslim wives greater security within marriage and more equal treatment with husbands.
The prohibition of triple talaq or Talaq-e-biddat has been seen as a remarkable advancement in India. It is viewed as an evolution of religious law and gender rights altogether. Even though the 2019 bill is still being scrutinized under the light of modern human rights standards, keeping in mind the dynamic environment, it is still considered evolutionary for the Muslim women who were oppressed and faced hardship because of their gender. Moreover, the prominent judgment reflects the commitment of the Indian Judicial System to uphold the constitutional values of Justice and Equality, while navigating the complex prospect of personal laws and religious practices and maintaining a balance of practicality while following the customs religiously.