SC: Triple talaq judgement

 dispute over whether triple talaq had been codified into statutory law by the 1937 Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act.

all statutes are subject to fundamental rights. However, under existing

jurisprudence, uncodified  personal law is exempt from fundamental rights scrutiny

Majority held tht the law was not codified in 1937 act
 
Nariman joined by (Lalit)
S.2 of the Muslim personal application act 1937-
“Notwithstanding (inspite) any custom or usage to the contrary… regarding… marriage,
dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula, and mubaraat… the  rule of
decision in cases where parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).”
 
This made it clear tht the shariat was accorded statutory sanctions in India, made it enforceable in India

'Non-obstante' is a Latin word which means 'notwithstanding anything contained'. That means this
clause empowers the legislation or a provision in which it contains, to override
the effects of any other legal provisions contrary to this under the same law or
any other laws

tail wagging the dog meaning- important person or work is controlled by less
Article 25 only protected “integral” or “essential” aspects of religion

religious authority holding that triple talaq was an “irregular” way of conducting divorce, it could
not, under any circumstances, be held to be an essential aspect of Islam

Justice Nariman found that arbitrariness had always been a ground of legislative review under Article
14 
 
Shamin Ara, had already held that “instantaneous triple talaq” was invalid under Islamic law

  hence, triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates
Shariat.
 

the source of authority  of triple talaq is a statute

Personal laws are not FR
Article 25 does not confer constitutional protection upon personal laws