Submitted to: Professor Pritam Gosh

LEGAL METHODS ASSIGNMENT

Submitted by: Nitya Jhanwar (81022100108)
Friday, 24 December 2021
NAME OF THE CASE: Shayara Bano v. Union of India

JUDGEMENT DATE: 22nd august,2017

CITATION: AIR 2017 9 SCC 1(SC)

PARTIES INVOLVED: Shayara Bano (petitioner)

Union of India (Respondent)

BENCH: 5 judges

ACT APPLIED IN CASE: Muslim personal law (Sharait) Act,1937

TYPE OF FORUM: Domestic

Introduction:
The case of Shayara Bano vs Union of India, also known as the 'Triple Talaq Case,' delivered
India a landmark ruling declaring Triple Talaq to be unconstitutional. The Triple Talaq
decision is often viewed as a bulwark against societal evils across jurisdictions. India finally
abolished the outdated and unethical practise of immediate Triple Talaq according to the
Supreme Court's majority bench's intelligent and justifiable argument.

Issues raised:
 Whether the practice of talaq e biddat (specifically instantaneous triple talaq / an
essential practice of Islam).
 Whether the practice of triple talaq violates any fundamental rights.

Verdict:
The fact that the five judges on the bench provided three separate lines of reasoning is
intriguing in this case. Former Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S. Abdul
Nazeer wrote the minority opinion. Justice Rohinton Fali Niraman and Justice Uday Lalit, the
majority judges, stated their views together, whereas Justice K.M. Joseph adopted a
completely different approach but came to the same conclusion, resulting in a 3:2 ratio.

Understanding and Assessment of the Verdict

The Court's decision appears to be correct on the surface, but the majority judges' methods
appear to differ, sparking a dispute about how to handle personal law in a secular society like
India. It raises the question of when judges should be allowed to rule on the constitutionality
of an uncodified procedure like triple talaq.
 Submitted to: Professor Pritam Gosh
LEGAL METHODS ASSIGNMENT
Submitted by: Nitya Jhanwar (81022100108)
Friday, 24 December 2021
Justice Khehar examines it not from the perspective of Muslim law, but rather from the
standpoint of the constitution, to see if it is valid under it. To which Justice Khehar responds
along the lines of the opposition's argument that personal law was not adopted by the state
and that only state issued law can be subjected to Fundamental Rights. However, the primary
error in the following reasoning is that a behaviour that is authorised and enacted by the
State, even though it is not codified under personal law, is not within the scope of the
sovereign's law.

When we examine Justice Niraman's argument, we see that he considers triple talaq to be
"law in effect" under Article 13 of the Constitution. With the very fair reasoning that, because
Section 211 of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharait) Act 1937 grants talaq universal authority,
it falls under the jurisdiction of state laws.

Positive and Negative aspects of the Verdict

The triple talaq decision is without a doubt a watershed moment in our country's legal
history, particularly in terms of private law. It has provided us with several options for
dealing with them, particularly Justice Joseph's "culturally grounded" decision. This decision
clearly demonstrated that the Supreme Court has learned from its previous personal law
blunders. Despite the fact that it lacked clarification on gender justice and inequality in
personal laws, as well as how they should be dealt, it was a positive step forward.

Future impact
It is unquestionably a step toward equality, and it has established a foundation for future
personal law and social reforms.

This ruling also dealt with minorities in a very practical manner, paving the path for
secularism. It is hoped that this decision would be made in the open, allowing Muslim
women to live a better and more secure life as guaranteed by the law.