• The practice of Triple Talaq is not part of personal law but statutory law vide Nariman J and Lalit J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is part of personal law not statutory law vide CJI, Nazeer J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is neither part of personal law nor statutory law vide Kurien J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because the law governing the practice is manifestly arbitrary vide Nariman J and Lalit J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because it is not a State action vide CJI and Nazeer J.
• Kurien J is silent on the question of violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which means practice of Triple Talaq is not held violative of Article 14 by him.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is not part of Article 25 of the Constitution vide Nariman J, Lalit J and Kurien J, hence no mandate to send the issue to the legislature.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is part of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution vide CJI and Nazeer J, hence SC barred from changing personal law and the legislature the only competent authority to address the issue.
• The SC in exercise of its power under Article 142 can direct the executive to consider appropriate legislation in re: Triple Talaq in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the executive has shown empathy with the cause of the petitioners vide CJI and Nazeer J.
• The SC has no business directing a legislation vide Kurien J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq is held unconstitutional and the law governing the same is held void and struck down vide Nariman J and Lalit J.
• The practice of Triple Talaq has no legal sanctity vide Shamim Ara v State of UP; 2002 (2) SCC 518 and the same is reiterated vide Kurien J.
• The executive is directed to consider appropriate legislation pending which the practice of Triple Talaq is stayed initially for 6 months extendable upto the time the appropriate legislation, if considered within the six months, is passed by the legislature, and if it fails, the stay ceases to operate vide CJI and Nazeer J.
• Since the practice of Triple Talaq is not held unconstitutional by majority of CJI, Nazeer J and Kurien J, it is not declared unconstitutional contrary to the media reporting.
• The directions issued by CJI and Nazeer J have no concurrence of either Kurien J, Nariman J or Lalit J, therefore, they are not executable. Though the executive and the legislature can always act on their own. But the directions per se are irrelevant. Anyways, I think the directions were judicial over-reach and also impractical, for the judiciary can’t speculate on the functioning of the legislature.
• Since Kurien J has only reiterated the already existing law under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution vide Shamin Ara, his judgement is executable by de-recognition of the practice of Triple Talaq by the judiciary, the executive, the Muslim kazis, and the public at large.