SC seeks Centre's response on plea to frame guidelines governing all forms of 'talaq'

The Supreme Court asked the Centre and other parties to respond to a plea seeking uniform procedural safeguards for all forms of talaq under Muslim personal law. The safeguards would aim to ensure fairness, reconciliation, transparency, and protection of women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The plea also challenges Talaq-e-Hasan.

It asks authorities to declare Talaq-e-Hasan and other unilateral, extra-judicial forms of talaq an evil requiring a ban. It also seeks continuing and retrospective economic and social protection for divorced women and their children affected by arbitrary talaq. Another request challenges Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law Application Act, 1937, insofar as it recognises Talaq-e-Hasan.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, tagged the case with a pending petition by a Muslim woman challenging her husband’s Talaq-e-Hasan. The case may therefore place both procedural safeguards and the validity of this divorce form before the court.

Talaq-e-Hasan is a form of divorce among Muslims in which a man pronounces the word “talaq” once each month over three months. The divorce becomes formal after the third pronouncement, but only if the couple has not resumed cohabitation during that period. This staged process is the core feature of the practice described in the article.

The mechanism allows an opportunity for reconciliation between pronouncements. If cohabitation resumes after the first or second utterance, the parties are assumed to have reconciled. In that situation, the process does not proceed to formalisation through a third effective pronouncement. The article contrasts this process with the separate practice of triple talaq.

The current legal issue is whether Talaq-e-Hasan and other unilateral, extra-judicial forms of talaq should remain valid. The Supreme Court has sought responses to a plea seeking safeguards, a possible ban, and a declaration that Section 2 of the 1937 Act is unconstitutional insofar as it validates Talaq-e-Hasan.

Talaq-e-Hasan involves three pronouncements of the word “talaq.” They are made once every month, so the process covers a three-month period. The divorce is formalised after the third utterance in the third month, provided the couple has not resumed cohabitation during that time. This timing distinguishes the practice from an immediate declaration.

The key mechanism is the possibility of reconciliation between pronouncements. If the couple resumes cohabitation after the first or second utterance, the parties are assumed to have reconciled. The article therefore describes the third pronouncement as effective only when cohabitation has not resumed during the period.

The Supreme Court is considering the issue after seeking responses to a plea challenging Talaq-e-Hasan. The plea asks for uniform, legally enforceable safeguards for all forms of talaq and seeks to protect women’s rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21. A separate pending petition by a Muslim woman raises the same validity question.

Under Talaq-e-Hasan, resuming cohabitation after the first or second pronouncement changes the legal and practical course described in the article. The parties are assumed to have reconciled. Because the process depends on the third pronouncement occurring without resumed cohabitation, reconciliation prevents the divorce from being formalised in that sequence.

The arrangement creates a period between pronouncements during which the marriage may continue. A man pronounces “talaq” once each month over three months. The third utterance in the third month formalises the divorce only if cohabitation has not resumed. Thus, the couple’s conduct during the intervening period is central to whether the process reaches completion.

The rule is part of the legal challenge now before the Supreme Court. The petitioner seeks uniform safeguards for all forms of talaq, including fairness, reconciliation, transparency, and protection of fundamental rights. The bench has tagged the plea with a separate petition filed by a Muslim woman challenging Talaq-e-Hasan given by her husband.

The article distinguishes Talaq-e-Hasan from triple talaq by describing different processes. Talaq-e-Hasan uses three pronouncements, one each month over three months, and allows reconciliation if cohabitation resumes. Triple talaq is identified as another form of divorce prevalent among Muslims, but the article does not describe its detailed pronouncement procedure.

The Supreme Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional in 2017. It found that practice arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of women. By contrast, the current plea asks the Court to examine Talaq-e-Hasan and other unilateral, extra-judicial forms of talaq. It seeks safeguards or a ban, rather than relying only on the earlier ruling.

The two issues are now linked procedurally. The Court tagged the fresh plea with a separate pending petition by a Muslim woman challenging Talaq-e-Hasan given by her husband. The broader case may therefore consider whether existing rules provide fairness, transparency, reconciliation, and constitutional protection.

The plea argues that divorce procedures affect core constitutional protections. Article 14 concerns equality before law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds including religion and sex, and Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The petitioner therefore wants divorce procedures to be fair, transparent, and consistent with these guarantees, especially for women.

The concern is that unilateral, extra-judicial talaq may affect women without uniform procedural safeguards. The plea asks for legally enforceable rules covering all forms of talaq and for economic and social protection for divorced women and their children. It also seeks gender-just and religion-neutral safeguards for dissolution of marriage under personal laws.

The Court has not yet ruled on these requests. It has sought responses from the Centre and others and linked the plea to a pending challenge involving Talaq-e-Hasan. The requested framework could address reconciliation, informed fairness, transparency, dignity, and personal liberty while the Court examines constitutional validity.

Muslim personal law is the body of personal rules applied to Muslims in matters such as marriage and divorce. The article places talaq within this framework and refers to the Muslim Personal Law Application Act, 1937. Section 2 is relevant because the plea says it should be declared unconstitutional insofar as it recognises and validates Talaq-e-Hasan.

Legislation can give legal recognition to a personal-law rule, but constitutional review allows courts to examine whether that rule is consistent with constitutional protections. Here, the plea invokes Articles 14, 15, and 21 and asks for safeguards that protect equality, non-discrimination, life, and personal liberty. It also seeks religion-neutral procedures for dissolving marriages.

The Supreme Court has sought responses rather than issued a final decision on Talaq-e-Hasan. Its bench has linked the fresh plea with a pending challenge by a Muslim woman. The eventual proceedings may clarify how the challenged statutory provision and personal-law practice fit with constitutional rights.