Majority opinion Shayara Bano Vs. Union Of India And Ors.

Majority opinion in this case, held that instant triple talaq is unconstitutional after
referring to the verses of quran. The Quran is divided into Suras (chapters) and the Suras are
divided into verses. Together, the Suras describe the ways Muslims should live.
The Quran specifically addresses procedures for marriage and divorce. After analyzing the
relevant verses, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there is no explicit mention of
Triple Talaq in the Holy Quran.

Apart from the questions relating to Talaq, the court also considered allied matters
such as polygamy and Halala into account while deciding the case. Justice Kurian Joseph
has quoted, “What is bad in theology was once good in law but after Shariat has been
declared as the personal law, whether what is Quranically wrong can be legally right is the
issue to be considered in this case.”

The Court concluded that Triple Talaq in itself lacks legal sanctity and referred to
Shamim Ara v. Union of India in support of the conclusion that the practice is
unconstitutional. The case of Shamim Ara quoted several Muslim jurists and concluded that
the Indo-Anglian judicial exposition of the Islamic Law of divorce has been inaccurate up to
this point. Marginal distortions are inevitable when India’s postcolonial judiciary has to
interpret religious texts such as the Quran, which originated in the Middle East. The Court
expressed its view that the Muslim husband’s arbitrary, unilateral power to inflict instant
divorce is not consistent with Islamic law.

Justice Nariman, who wrote the majority judgment, was of the firm opinion that the
right to freely practice one’s own religion is ensconced in the Constitution for the purposes of
facilitating the ideal of secularism. However, he reasoned that when the religion has practices
that discriminate on the basis of gender, the practices are not legally protected. Although the
Court did not mention gender equality in its decision, it seems implicit that the Court’s
objection was the unilateral nature of the Triple Talaq (i.e., it could be issued by a husband to
a wife but not vice versa).