Triple Talaq Judgment: the Facts with Respect to Interpretation

• The practice of Triple Talaq is part of statutory law, not personal 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 part of neither 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 the practice of Triple Talaq is not held violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by him.

• The practice of Triple Talaq is not part of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, hence there is no mandate to send the issue to the legislature, vide Nariman J, Lalit J and Kurien J.

• The practice of Triple Talaq is part of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, hence the Supreme Court is barred from changing the personal law, and the legislature is the only competent authority to address the issue, vide CJI and Nazeer J.

• The Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution can direct the executive to consider appropriate legislation in reference to Triple Talaq in the peculiar circumstances of the case; i.e., when the executive has shown empathy towards the cause of the petitioners, vide CJI and Nazeer J.

• The Supreme Court has no business directing a legislation to the executive, vide Kurien J.

• The practice of Triple Talaq is held unconstitutional; the law governing the same is held void; and the same is 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 the period 6 months, which is extendable upto the time the appropriate legislation, if considered within the period of 6 months, is passed by the legislature. If the legislation fails, the stay ceases to operate, vide CJI and Nazeer J.

Triple Talaq Judgment: Author’s Intrepretation

• Since the practice of Triple Talaq is not held unconstitutional by majority of CJI, Nazeer J and Kurien J, it has not been 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, for not being the majority view, the directions are not executable. I think the directions were judicial over-reach. And they were also impractical, for the judiciary can’t speculate on the functioning of the legislature. Nevertheless, the executive and the legislature can always act on their own and formulate law with respect to Triple Talaq, of course uninfluenced by the judiciary.

• Since Kurien J has only reiterated the already existing law under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution vide Shamin Ara v. State of UP, his judgment is executable by de-recognition of the practice of Triple Talaq by the judiciary, the executive, the Muslim kazis, and the public at large.

External Links 

Triple Talaq Judgment

Shamim Ara v. State of UP

Also checkout Prostitution in India: Legal if Really Free Choice