In February this year, the SC said a five-judge, multi-faith Constitution bench

would be set up to hear and decide on whether 'triple talaq', the oral divorce
practice some Muslims follow, is constitutionally valid. The hearings concluded
last month and a verdict was delivered on 22 August 2017 . Here's a look back at
the main developments in the case:

After her husband gave her triple talaq in October 2015, Shayara Bano approached
the Supreme Court in 2016, challenging the validity of the divorce practices
against women followed by Muslims. Shayara is a 35-year-old woman from
Uttarakhand's Kashipur area and was married for 15 years before she was divorced.
In her petition, Shayara asked the apex Court to declare talaq-e-bidat , polygamy
and nikah halala illegal and unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25. However,
her husband opposed Shayara's plea on the ground they were governed by Muslim
Personal Law and all three practices are sanctified provisions under the very same
law.

The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar is hearing seven

petitions, including five separate writ petitions filed by Muslim women. Five
judges from five different communities heard the triple talaq case in the Supreme
Court. They are Chief Justice JS Khehar (Sikh), Justices Kurian Joseph (Christian),
RF Nariman (Parsi), UU Lalit (Hindu) and Abdul Nazeer (Muslim).

And I would like to quote the judgement of Kurian Joseph

The freedom of religion under the Constitution of India is absolute and on this
point, I am in full agreement with the learned Chief Justice. However, on the
statement that triple talaq is an integral part of the religious practice, I respectfully
disagree. Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot
make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible.

What it means: Just because Triple Talaq is an integral part of religion, cannot
make it valid
Justice Kurian Joseph holds that after the introduction of the 1973 Act, no practice
against the Quran is permissible. Therefore, there can be no constitutional
protection for the practice of triple talaq.

When issues of such nature come to the forefront, the discourse often takes the
form of pitting religion against other constitutional rights. I believe that a
reconciliation between the same is possible, but the process of harmonizing
different interests is within the powers of the legislature. Of course, this power has
to be exercised within the constitutional parameters without curbing the religious
freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India. However, it is not for the
Courts to direct for any legislation.

Anoushka your view

Justice Joseph say he agrees on the point that freedom of religion under the
Constitution of India is absolute under article 25 but what article 25 clause 2 says
on the grounds of Public order, Morality and health it can be restricted. Our
constitution gives us the power to make laws to stuck down the practice of instant
triple talaq on the on the ground of these three exceptions especially morality.

1. the Hanafi jurisprudence describes the practice as sinful. even kuran doesn't
approve it.
2. revocation of marriage without any attempt at reconciliation is not only illegal
but also unethical & inhumane.

3. the pain & trauma highlighted by leading ladies like Shah bano, sharaya bano
called for an end to the practice which is certainly anachronistic in 21st century
India..

What it means: It is not for the courts to direct any legislation

Unlike Justice Khehar who explicitly calls on the legislature to frame a Muslim
divorce law as it is not with in the ambit of court to direct the legislature to make
laws.
Various social ills in the past like sati, devdasi system were abolished by
legislative pronouncements & not by judicial injunctions. in this regard, judiciary
has set a wrong precedent by usurping the powers of Parliament.
despite all odds, this judgment is a victory for muslim women fighting injustice for
several centuries. SC had performed its duty, now the onus lies on the parliament
to come up with a law to regulate the practice with widest possible consensus.