The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan, under which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by pronouncing “talaq” once a month over three months, can continue in its present form in a modern, civilised society, observing that it may need to be regulated, if not struck down altogether, to safeguard the dignity of women.
A bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, said that the issue goes beyond individual disputes and involves “society at large,” warranting judicial scrutiny of the form of divorce.
The bench, also comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh, was hearing a series of petitions, including one filed by a woman who received her third and final notice of Talaq-e-Hasan in June 2022. Her husband, she said, went ahead with the divorce after her family refused to pay additional dowry, sending notices through the post in April, May and June. The woman argued that the practice is discriminatory, arbitrary, violative of her dignity and incompatible with constitutional values.
The bench expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which some men have been executing the practice. At one point, the bench took exception to the fact that one husband had authorised his advocate, rather than himself, to issue the talaq notice, remarking that such a method, is questionable even under personal law.
“What prevents the husband from directly writing to her? Does he have such an ego that even for divorce he cannot speak to her? How are you promoting this kind of practice in modern society? Whatever best religious practice we follow, is this what we allow? Is this how the dignity of a woman is upheld? Should a civilised society allow this kind of practice?” the bench remarked.
{{/usCountry}}“What prevents the husband from directly writing to her? Does he have such an ego that even for divorce he cannot speak to her? How are you promoting this kind of practice in modern society? Whatever best religious practice we follow, is this what we allow? Is this how the dignity of a woman is upheld? Should a civilised society allow this kind of practice?” the bench remarked.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate MR Shamshad, who appeared for the husband, said appointing someone to communicate or issue the divorce is a known religious practice. But the court was unconvinced. “How are these new innovative ideas being invented?” the bench questioned.
When the husband’s counsel said that the practice could be rectified if required, the bench noted that the man, himself a lawyer, would have to follow the prescribed procedure and be personally present before the court at the next hearing.
The bench praised the petitioner woman for her courage in approaching the court but pointed to the many women who may not have the means or resources to challenge such divorces. “Today we have a journalist before us. What about those unheard voices living in remote areas?” asked the court, noting that misuse of the practice can leave women facing issues such as stalled school admissions for their children or difficulties with passport documentation when the husband refuses to sign or acknowledge the divorce formally. In the present case, the court asked the woman to file an application detailing the reliefs needed and assured her assistance.
The bench is examining the constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan, distinct from the instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat), which it struck down in 2017 as “manifestly arbitrary.” In August 2025, the top court had sought opinions from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Commission for Women (NCW) and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). On Wednesday, the NHRC sought more time to file its response.
During the hearing, the petitioner, represented by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, urged the court to extend the same constitutional protections given in the Shayara Bano case (triple talaq) to women subjected to Talaq-e-Hasan.
The bench observed that while these cases case may not strictly fall within instant triple talaq, the issues raised require careful evaluation. It added that the court would consider whether the matter should be referred to a constitution bench, depending on the legal questions framed by the parties.
“We will examine both the feasibility as well as the need for it. Even a three-judge bench can decide it following the principles laid down by the five-judge bench,” the court said.
“We are not saying today it has to be struck down. It can also be regulated properly. Let us see,” added the bench, posting the matter for November 26 after granting NHRC time to file its affidavit. The husband of the lead petitioner has been directed to be present in court.