Shayara Bano Case: Triple Talaq Verdict and the 2019 Law

Supreme Court asks the Centre for FIR data; the challenge to the 2019 Act stays pending Latest

The 2019 Act has itself been challenged. Petitions from Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Amir Rashadi Madani were filed in August 2019, and on 23 August 2019 the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union (Supreme Court Observer). Petitioners argue the practice was already void after 2017, so criminal penalties were unnecessary, and that the law targets Muslim husbands on grounds of religion (Article 15). In an affidavit reported on 19 August 2024 the Centre defended the Act, calling triple talaq “fatal” to the institution of marriage and saying the 2017 judgment had not been a sufficient deterrent (The Tribune).

On 29 January 2025 a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar asked the Union for the number of FIRs under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the number of cases still pending, and figures for rural areas (LiveLaw). We found no ruling on the challenge and no published FIR count as of 28 October 2026; the case remains listed as pending.

Shayara Bano joins the BJP in Uttarakhand Background

Shayara Bano joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in Uttarakhand in October 2020, reported on 11 October as having happened the previous Saturday; she said she had not joined to seek a party ticket (Madhyamam). The 2017 judgment does not depend on her later politics; we include it only as a dated fact about the petitioner.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 receives assent Legislation

The Act declares any talaq pronounced by a Muslim husband in the form of talaq-e-biddat, or any similar instant and irrevocable form, void and illegal. A husband faces up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. The offence is cognizable only if information is given by the married woman or a person related to her by blood or marriage; the Magistrate may compound it at the woman’s request; and bail can be granted only after hearing the woman. She may seek subsistence allowance for herself and dependent children, and custody of minor children, as fixed by the Magistrate (Press Information Bureau; PRS Legislative Research). The Act is deemed in force from 19 September 2018, the date of the first ordinance.

Rajya Sabha passes the Bill 99 to 84 Legislation

The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill with 99 votes in favour and 84 against. It rejected the opposition’s demand to refer the Bill to a select committee (The Leaflet). The Biju Janata Dal backed the Bill, while JD(U) and the AIADMK walked out (Scroll.in). Critics argued the offence should have remained civil; supporters said criminal penalties were needed because the 2017 ruling alone had not stopped the practice.

Lok Sabha passes the Bill Legislation

After about five hours of debate the Lok Sabha carried the motion to consider the Bill 303 to 82 on 25 July, and Speaker Om Birla declared it passed on a voice vote (LiveLaw). The Bill was to replace the February ordinance. It changed contentious provisions of the 2017 Bill, which had made the offence cognizable for anyone to report, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Introducing it, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said 345 cases of triple talaq had been reported after the August 2017 verdict, a government claim we could not independently verify.

Third ordinance is promulgated Legislation

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated on 21 February 2019, the third ordinance on the subject; PRS notes similar ordinances in September 2018 and January 2019, and that this one took effect from the date of the first (PRS Legislative Research; The Leaflet). It restated the offence, the penalty, the bail and compounding rules, and the allowance and custody provisions.

Second ordinance after the winter session Legislation

After the Rajya Sabha did not clear the revised Bill in the winter session, the government re-promulgated the ordinance in January 2019; reports differ on whether the date was 10 or 12 January (The Leaflet). Ordinances are temporary and must be placed before Parliament.

Lok Sabha passes a revised Bill; Rajya Sabha does not Legislation

The revised Bill, introduced on 17 December 2018 to replace the ordinance, was passed by the Lok Sabha in the winter session, on 27 December (ETV Bharat chronology). The opposition stalled it in the Rajya Sabha on 31 December, and it lapsed when the 16th Lok Sabha was dissolved (LiveLaw).

First ordinance makes instant triple talaq a criminal offence Legislation

The government promulgated the first ordinance on 19 September 2018, after the 2017 Bill had stalled in the Rajya Sabha. Some outlets give 18 or 20 September; the official factsheet and PRS use 19 September, which is also the date from which the 2019 Act is deemed to apply (Press Information Bureau; PRS Legislative Research).

Lok Sabha passes the first Bill; it is not taken up in the Rajya Sabha Legislation

The Lok Sabha passed the 2017 Bill on 28 December by voice vote. As drafted it made the offence cognizable on anyone’s complaint, non-bailable and non-compoundable (LiveLaw). The Rajya Sabha did not take it up because the opposition wanted it sent to a select committee, and the session ended with the Bill stuck (Udayavani).

Supreme Court sets aside talaq-e-biddat by 3:2 Court

The Court’s order was one line: “In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq is set aside” (Supreme Court judgment). The five judges did not agree on why.

The majority. Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Uday Umesh Lalit held that the 1937 Act, insofar as it recognises and enforces triple talaq, is a “law in force” under Article 13(1) and void to that extent, because the practice is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14; they did not need to decide the discrimination argument. Justice Kurian Joseph agreed in a separate opinion, reasoning that the practice has no sanction in the Quran and so cannot be protected as religion (Supreme Court Observer).

The dissent. Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concluded that the petitioners’ challenge must fail “on the judicial front”, treating the practice as a matter of faith for Parliament rather than the Court to change. But because all sides called it arbitrary and gender discriminatory, they used Article 142 to direct the Union to consider legislation and, until then, to injunct Muslim husbands from pronouncing talaq-e-biddat for six months, continuing if the legislative process began (paragraphs 197–200 of the judgment).

The ruling covered instant triple talaq only. Bano’s petition had also raised polygamy and nikah halala, which this order did not decide.

Constitution Bench hears the case over a week Court

Hearings began on 11 May, when the Court said it would examine whether the practice is fundamental to Islam. On 15 May the Centre said it would bring a new law if triple talaq was struck down. On 16 May the AIMPLB argued that matters of faith cannot be tested on constitutional morality. The bench reserved its verdict on 18 May (Onmanorama). In an affidavit the AIMPLB also undertook to advise those performing nikah to counsel grooms not to pronounce three talaqs at once (judgment, para 198).

The Court calls the issues “very important” and sets a Constitution Bench Court

On 30 March the Supreme Court said the questions were important enough for a Constitution Bench and fixed 11 May for hearing (Onmanorama; Supreme Court Observer). On 27 March the AIMPLB had argued the pleas were not maintainable.

Court says a five-judge bench will be formed Court

On 16 February the Court said a five-judge Constitution Bench would be set up and asked the AIMPLB, the Union and women’s groups for written submissions; other pleas had been tagged with the main case two days earlier (Supreme Court Observer; Onmanorama).

Allahabad High Court judge criticises triple talaq, but does not rule Court

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Suneet Kumar, called triple talaq “cruel” and said personal laws cannot claim supremacy over rights granted by the Constitution. Many outlets reported that he had declared it unconstitutional; Scroll.in noted that the court did not rule because the matter was already before the Supreme Court, and the AIMPLB said “this is not a judgment, just an observation” (Scroll.in).

The Centre tells the Supreme Court the practice should be tested on gender justice Court

The government told the Supreme Court that the practice’s validity should be judged by gender-justice standards and that triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala were not essential Islamic practices (Scroll.in; Onmanorama).

Shayara Bano files her Supreme Court petition Court

Shayara Bano filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging talaq-e-biddat, polygamy and nikah halala, and seeking a declaration that her husband’s talaq was void (Supreme Court Observer; judgment). It was heard together with other petitions and the Court’s own suo motu case.

Supreme Court registers its own case on Muslim women’s rights Court

A two-judge bench of Justices Anil Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel asked the Chief Justice to constitute a bench to examine gender discrimination suffered by Muslim women, and the matter was registered as a suo motu public interest case, arising while it was dealing with a Hindu succession matter (ETV Bharat chronology; Legally India). It was later heard with Shayara Bano’s petition.

Rizwan Ahmad pronounces talaq; the “deed of divorce” is dated 10 October Court

According to the judgment, Rizwan Ahmad’s talaqnama dated 10 October 2015 recorded that he had said “talak, talak, talak” before two witnesses and that there was no longer a marriage (Supreme Court judgment). The couple were married on 11 April 2001 and had two children. The husband’s account, recorded in the judgment, is that she left the matrimonial home in April 2015 and he had filed for restitution of conjugal rights; Bano’s petition alleged dowry demands and cruelty. Those are the parties’ competing accounts, not findings.

Parliament overrides the Shah Bano ruling Background

In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (23 April 1985) the Supreme Court granted a divorced Muslim woman maintenance; in 1986 Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in response (Wikipedia). The episode is the usual background for debates about courts, Parliament and Muslim personal law.

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act Background

The Act provides for the application of Muslim personal law to specified matters. In Shayara Bano the question was whether it recognised and enforced triple talaq so that the practice could be tested against the Constitution; Justices Nariman and Lalit held that, to that extent, Section 2 of the Act is void (Supreme Court judgment).