The Supreme Court on Monday fixed November 19–20 for the final hearing of a batch of petitions seeking to declare Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extrajudicial divorce as unconstitutional.
Talaq-e-Hasan is a form of divorce in which a Muslim man can dissolve a marriage by pronouncing the word “talaq” once a month over three months, with the divorce becoming final upon the third pronouncement if cohabitation has not resumed.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed that the National Commission for Women (NCW), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) submit their opinions in the matter. The court also allowed all intervention applications, noting that they could assist during the hearing.
“If there is any material, including books or scriptures, that may be produced. An opinion of the NCW, NHRC, and NCPCR should be on record for proper assistance,” the bench observed, asking ASG K M Nataraj to ensure these are filed.
When asked about the Centre’s stand, counsel Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay said no counter-affidavit had been filed in this case but pointed out that in the Triple Talaq matter, the government had opposed all forms of unilateral extrajudicial divorce.
Rejecting objections on maintainability and locus standi, the bench said, “We should not be worried about technicalities at this stage. There are individuals who are affected and are before this court.”
The court is hearing nine petitions, including one filed by Ghaziabad resident Benazeer Heena, who claims to be a victim of Talaq-e-Hasan. The petitioners have also sought directions to the Centre to frame gender- and religion-neutral uniform grounds and procedures for divorce applicable to all citizens.
The Supreme Court had admitted the pleas on October 11, 2022 and previously impleaded the petitioners’ husbands, seeking their replies. In August 2022, the bench had noted that its primary focus was to grant immediate relief to women claiming to be victims before examining the constitutional validity of the practice.
