‘What kind of practice is this?’ SC lashes out at Talaq-e-Hasan, questions dignity and fairness

The Supreme Court on November 19 delivered a sharp rebuke to Talaq-e-Hasan, a form of unilateral divorce practiced by a section of Muslims, questioning whether such a system has any place in a modern, civilised society.

“What kind of a thing is this? How are you promoting this in 2025? Whatever best religious practice we follow, is this what you allow? Is this how dignity of a woman is upheld?” Justice Surya Kant asked while heading a three-judge bench that also comprised Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by journalist Benazeer Heena, who has challenged the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan, calling it irrational, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25.

‘Gross discriminatory practices’

Emphasising that the issue touches society at large, the bench signalled a willingness to step in.
“Society at large is involved. Some remedial measures have to be taken. If there are gross discriminatory practices, then the court has to interfere,” Justice Kant said.

The bench also indicated that it may refer the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, and directed the parties to submit a note outlining the key legal questions that would arise.

Petitioner says she cannot prove divorce, faces stigma

Heena’s counsel told the court that because of the manner in which her husband sent the Talaq-e-Hasan notice — after which he remarried — she has been unable to establish her marital status.

“The problem started with the schools where I wanted to get my child admitted. Everywhere I said I was a divorcee, my papers were not accepted… I don’t know the technicalities,” the petitioner’s counsel said, adding that the dispute stemmed from dowry demands.

The court will hear the case next on November 26.

What is Talaq-e-Hasan?

Talaq-e-Hasan allows a man to end a marriage by pronouncing talaq once every month over three months.

The divorce becomes final after the third pronouncement if cohabitation has not resumed. If the couple resumes cohabitation after the first or second pronouncement, the marriage is treated as restored.