In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, a group of petitions questioning the constitutionality of 'Talaq-e-Hasan', a Muslim divorce practice where a husband can unilaterally divorce his wife by uttering "talaq" three times over three months, was discussed. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed their reluctance to reject these petitions on grounds of maintainability or the petitioners' standing.

The lead petition in this case was filed by journalist Benazeer Heena, who claims her husband initiated the divorce process by sending her the first notice via speed post on April 19, with further notices following in successive months.

The bench, which is reviewing nine petitions on this matter, has scheduled a hearing for November, requesting input from the National Commission for Women, the National Human Rights Commission, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

The Court observed , "Maintainability and locus can't be the issues in these matters. There are aggrieved persons before us", in response to arguments presented by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad about the Court's jurisdiction related to the interpretation of "law" as stated in Article 13 of the Constitution.

Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, representing the petitioners, noted that significant discussions had taken place during the hearings of a previous case regarding 'triple talaq', where the Court deemed 'talaq-e-biddat' as unconstitutional.

Despite these foundations, Justice Kant affirmed that the current cases would be considered independently.

Furthermore, the bench is allowing the introduction of various materials, such as literature or religious texts, to support the arguments made. Interventions by other parties have also been granted for consideration.

The legal discourse surrounding this issue is particularly relevant as it highlights the discriminatory nature of a practice that permits solely men to initiate divorce, raising questions about its compliance with Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

In a prior bench ruling from August 2022, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh remarked on the practice of talaq-e-hasan, indicating that it is "not so improper".

They highlighted that Muslim women also have the option of divorce through 'khula', with Justice Kaul asserting, "Prima facie this (Talaq-e-Hasan) is not so improper. Women also have an option. Khula is there. Prima facie I don't agree with petitioners. I don't want this to become an agenda for any other reason."

Case Details: Benazeer Heena Versus Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 348/2022.