New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns about the legality of talaq-e-hasan, a type of divorce in which a Muslim man can end a marriage by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months, reigniting the debate over unilateral Muslim divorces eight years after it overturned instant triple talaq.  

After the court had earlier ruled that quick triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was "bad in law," a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh frequently questioned how such a practice could persist in "modern society."

The courts were considering many petitions contesting talaq-e-hasan, including one from journalist Benazeer Heena, who claimed that because her ex-husband never signed the divorce papers, she had trouble getting her child admitted to school. Her attorney told the court that Ghulam Akhtar, her husband, had remarried after divorcing her through his attorney. 

Even the 11-page talaq notice that was sent to her did not have the husband's signature, according to her attorney. "She will indulge herself in polyandry because of her husband," the attorney argued, emphasizing that the husband's advocate was solely responsible for communicating the divorce.

Justice Kant quickly responded, "Can this be a practice?," in response to the husband's attorney's defense that it was a regular practice in Islam. How are these fresh, creative concepts being developed? The communication strategy was also criticized by the bench. He is so arrogant that he is unable to communicate with her even throughout a divorce. In today's world, how can this be promoted? The court noted that it is a woman's dignity.

The bench emphasized that if divorce is performed in accordance with religious custom, the process must be followed precisely. It also expressed concern about what less fortunate women would experience in similar situations and urged Heena to name the school that turned down her child.

“We salute this woman who has chosen to fight for her rights. But what about a poor woman who has no resources? Should a civilised society allow this kind of practice?” the bench said. Additionally, the husband was ordered by the court to present at the next hearing and "unconditionally provide what she wants."

The bench had ruled in previous hearings that talaq-e-hasan was not inherently wrong. Heena's PIL, submitted by attorney Ashwini Upadhyay, contends that while Muslim men have the authority to perform talaq-e-hasan or any other type of unilateral extrajudicial talaq, Muslim women do not. She has requested rules for divorce grounds and processes that are both gender-neutral and religion-neutral. The appeal states that its goal is to safeguard persons who are economically and socially disadvantaged.  

During the PIL hearing, the judge issued a warning that no agenda should be pushed via the lawsuit.

Talaq-e-Hasan, Triple Talaq, and the 2017 Supreme Court Verdict

The difference between Talaq-e-Hasan and Triple Talaq:

• Talaq-e-hasan allows a Muslim man to divorce his wife by saying “talaq” once a month for three consecutive months.
• Triple talaq, or talaq-e-biddat, allowed a husband to instantly divorce his wife by repeating the word “talaq” three times at once.

While talaq-e-hasan is staggered and spread over three months, talaq-e-biddat grants immediate, irreversible divorce.

2017 Supreme Court Ban on Instant Triple Talaq:

In 2017, the controversial practice of immediate triple talaq was outlawed by the Indian Supreme Court. A husband could immediately dissolve a marriage by saying "talaq" three times, according to a custom that dates back more than a millennium.

It was not unanimously banned by the five-judge panel. Two justices believed that Parliament should have the authority to enact legislation on the matter, while three judges ruled that the practice was unconstitutional. Even though the majority decision made quick triple talaq illegal in India, attorney Balaji Srinivasan called the absence of unanimity “disappointing.”