The Supreme Court would on Tuesday pronounce a historic judgement on the controversial issue of whether the practice of 'triple talaq' among Muslims is fundamental to the religion.

Auto refresh feeds

The apex court will convene at 10.30 am to deliver the verdict to declare whether the Islamic practice of triple talaq is constitutionally valid or not. A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, will pronounce the judgment.

The five member-bench began hearing the case on 11 May 2017. The hearing went on for a week as the apex court heard a number of cases relating to the practise of triple talaq. The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on 18 May 2017.

During the six days, various parties, including the central government, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board, etc made their submissions in the matter. While first three days were available for those challenging triple talaq, next three days were reserved for those defending it. The Centre had told the Supreme Court that triple talaq was not integral to Islam, but was a gender issue within the Muslim community.

"The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench," Rohatgi said.

The observation was made when former Attorney General (A-G) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' were also part of the order of a two-judge bench which had referred to the Constitutional bench the three issues, including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.

The Centre on 15 May told the apex court it will come out with legislation to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if the Supreme Court court holds triple talaq as invalid and unconstitutional.

Centre to enact law on Islamic marriage and divorce if SC strikes down practice?

Former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, in his rebuttal to the arguments favouring the 1,400 year-old practice of triple talaq, made a strong pitch for judicial scrutiny on grounds including violation of fundamental rights like right to equality and gender justice and said that the apex court cannot shy away.

Triple talaq is neither integral to Islam nor a "majority versus minority" issue but rather an "intra-community tussle" between Muslim men and deprived women, the Centre had told the Supreme Court on 17 May.

"This practice disrespects and violates the rights of women and is against the idea of gender equality," she said ina programme organised on triple talaq by the BJYM. Triple talaq is a practice among Muslims in which the husband pronounces 'talaq' thrice in 'one-go' to get a divorce.

Dubbing triple talaq as a "regressive" practice, the BJP MP said, "The practice has no place in 'new India' that we are seeking to build."

The Narendra Modi government is committed to support all the women who are suffering due to the practice of 'triple talaq', Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha (BJYM) president Poonam Mahajan said on Monday.

Social boycott is an idea that is antithetical to democracy. In our country, caste and untouchability are grave crimes that are punishable by law. Notions such as social boycott are at the root of caste and apartheid of any kind. How the personal law board can tout it as means to a noble goal such as abolition of triple talaq is hard to understand. Lastly, but very importantly, the women are seeking justice which they are entitled to as citizens in a democracy. They are knocking at the doors of the courts and the parliament. Women are not seeking charity or favour from any private bodies such as the personal law board. Women are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold gender justice and gender equality and rule against the patriarchal practice of triple talaq.

AIMPLB had expressed confidence that the court will not interfere in Muslim Personal Law and will not ban triple talaq, according to Zee News and ANI. The report quotes AIMPLB member and Muslim cleric Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali as saying, "We have put forth our view in light of Quran and we are confident enough that whatever will be the judgement of the court, it will naturally be in the light of the Constitution of our country."

The five-member bench comprises of Chief Justice JS Khehar, Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, UU Lalit and Abdul Nazeer. While Chief Justice JS Khehar is a Sikh, Justice Kurian Joseph is a Malayali Christian, Justice Rohinton Nariman belongs to the minuscule Parsi community, while Justice Uday Lalit is a Hindu, Justice Abdul Nazeer is a Muslim.

The most important plea during the hearing was one filed by Shayara Bano. According to her plea in the Supreme Court, her husband divorced her through triple talaq. Bano contended that “the Muslim husband’s right to ask for divorce by uttering talaq three times in a row is completely unilateral, unguided, absolute and has no rationale. It cannot be identified with Muslim culture and is not part of Muslim law. So it is not part of religion and hence not part of the right to practise or propogate religion and deserves no protection,” The Indian Express quoted her as petition as stating.

JS Khehar became the Chief Justice of India in January this year. His term as the first Sikh chief justice will end on 27 August 2017. Hence, the triple talaq verdict as well as the right to privacy ruling, which is also expected to come this week, may well be the final verdicts delivered by Khehar.

One of the final verdicts to be delivered by JS Khehar

The fallacy in Khan's argument, therefore, is that he wants the rights of women under Quran where the practice is essentially discriminatory. So long as the law does not give equal rights to Muslim woman and the Muslim husband can pronounce his own judgement, the issue cannot be resolved. One hopes that the Supreme Court addresses this aspect of the problem.

Be it triple or quadruple talaq, it must happen inside a courtroom. The issue of talaq must come within the mainstream judicial framework and cannot be left to be determined by extra-judicial courts. Otherwise, not only would the Muslim wife be left at the mercy of unilateral divorce, the husband would also be left with the humiliating experience of effecting divorce on his own or through clerics.

Arguments before SC show Muslim minds still unwilling to think outside religion's framework

"It will be dealt in future," the bench clarified.

"The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench," Rohatgi said.

The observation was made when Attorney General (A-G) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' were also part of the order of a two-judge bench which had referred to the Constitutional bench the three issues, including the practice of triple talaq among Muslims.

The Supreme Court on 16 May said it was keeping open for adjudication in the future the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims as the Centre insisted deliberations on these aspects as well.

SC says it is ready to consider 'nikah halala', polygamy in future

"I believe India will fully support the women in their struggle. The women of this country created a revolution against Triple Talaq. There was an atmosphere against Triple Talaq in the country with even the media supporting the women,"he said.

The Triple Talaq issue found a notable mention in the Independence Day speech. Reiterating his government's support to the movement against Triple Talaq, ,Modi added that India will also support Muslim women in their struggle.

Modi said he hoped that "powerful people" would emerge from society and help "eradicate outdated practices and evolve modern systems".

"I appeal to you not to view the triple talaq issue from a political perspective. Come out and find a solution. That solution will have its own majesty and generations will remember you," he said.

At a function to mark the Basava Jayanti celebrations inhonour of Kannada philosopher Basaveswara, Modi referred to the 12th century reformer's movement against regressive practices to speak about triple talaq.

On 29 April, Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged Muslims not to view the triple talaq issue from a political perspective and expressed the confidence that efforts to end the practice would be led by "enlightened" members of the community.

30 March 2017: SC says these issues are "very important" and involve "sentiments" and says a constitution bench would start hearing from 11 May.

7 October 2016: For the first time in India's constitutional history, Centre opposes in SC these practices and favours a relook on grounds like gender equality and secularism.

16 October 2015: Supreme Court bench asks CJI to set up an appropriate bench to examine if Muslim women face gender discrimination in cases of divorce while dealing with a case of Hindu succession.

Here is how the petitions came to be heard by SC

According to The Indian Express, there are six petitioners in the case, including five women. They are: Shayara Bano, Ishrat Jahan, Gulshan Parween, Aafreen Rehman, and Atiya Sabri. Zakia Soman-led Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) is the sixth petitioner.

Here are the six petitioners in the triple talaq case

“We have reproduced verses from the Quran about talaq, negotiations and how it should happen over a minimum period of 90 days. The second argument is about gender justice. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution of India about all citizens having equal rights,” The Indian Express quoted the petition.

BMMA was the third petitioner in the triple talaq case. In a petition titled ‘Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality’, BMMA argued that Allah says men and women are equal.

Justice Abdul Nazeer was born in 1958 in Karnataka's Moodbidri. According to Udayavani, a Kannada newspaper, Nazeer completed his B.Com degree at Mahaveera College in Moodbidri before obtaining a law degree from SDM Law College. He enrolled as an advocate in 1983 before being elevated as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2003. He became a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court on 24 September 2004. Nazeer was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2017.

Here is the profile of Justice Abdul Nazeer, the Muslim judge in the five-member bench

The practice has been denounced in Pakistan, which describes itself as an Islamic Republic. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan Jawwad S Khawaja had said that "triple talaq was never a part of pure Islamic history and was not considered valid as per Islamic law." He further added that, "Instant talaq or triple talaq has not been considered valid in Islam and it is not considered to be the best form of divorce under Islamic law. If you look at what jurists have opined in the 1,000-year old history that it was never acceptable and it has never been the most accepted of talaq in any era of Islamic history,”

Muslim law in India comes from the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 which says that in so far as matters concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance and other personal matters, the law governing Muslims in India shall be the Muslim personal law or the Shariat.

There are "school of thoughts (which) say that triple talaq is legal, but it is the worst and not desirable form for dissolution of marriages among Muslims," a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, said on the second day of continued hearing on the matter.

On 12 May 2017 , the Supreme Court said the practice of triple talaq was the "worst" and "not desirable" form of dissolution of marriages among Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which termed it as "legal".

Similarly, Article 25 is subject to Article 15 (1) which says that the State "shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex..." Since triple talaq does not work in the favour of women, it violates Article 15 (1) of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution , religious freedom is subject to all other Fundamental Rights. Article 25 — which guarantees Freedom of Practice and Propagation of Religion — does not protect religious practices since they can negatively affect the welfare of citizens. Article 14, which guarantees the Right to Equality, overrides Article 25 because triple talaq denies a Muslim woman's equality before the law.

The much awaited verdict is expected anytime soon. Talking to CNN News18, the AIMPLB said that it is unconstitutional for the judiciary to interfere in the relgious practices of Muslims. The board also said that there cannot be any uniform civil code in a diverse antion like India.

"It has been let to the Muslim community to bring the change. When the constitution was being made, then there was a debate delegitimise untouchability. Then, it enacted Article 17. The Supreme Court has put the ball in Parliament's court. Supreme Court cannot direct Parliament as it is supreme.My preliminary understanding is that SC cannot tell Parliament what it needs to do," Tewari told ANI.

One needs to read the full verdict of the Supreme Court in order to understand the full reasons behind the order, but the direction from the court to the Union Government to consider legislation ending the practice is a welcome step. Legislation outlawing the practice of Triple Talaq would be the most major reform in Muslim Personal law since the enactment of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. It will be interesting to see if this current Government by passes the amendment of the Muslim Personal law and goes straight to introducing the much talked about Uniform Civil Code instead.

It will be interesting to see if triple talaq ends up reigniting Uniform Civil Code

Taking note of the fact that political parties should keep their differences aside and work to help the Centre, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that if the government fails to bring in law in the next six months, the apex court injunction will continue.

After the 3-2 majority verdict invalidated the Islamic practice of triple talaq, the AIMPLB said that the legal committee of AIMPLB will study and advice the executive of the Muslim law board. "We have convened a meeting of the executive on 10 September at Bhopal to decide the future course of action," the board said.

The 3:2 split verdict declaring the Islamic practice of triple talaq as illegal is an open-ended verdict, which is subject to several interpretations, several senior lawyers told Firstpost. Legal experts insist that everyone needs to wait for the full verdict to be out to make any sense of it.

"The Supreme Court in a majority 3:2 judgment set aside Triple Talaq as "manifestly arbitrary". But question remains — do we really need the Parliament to frame a law to tell us that women's rights are human rights in the debate of universality versus cultural relativism?," human rights lawyer and researcher Deya Bhattacharya told Firstpost.

'Why do we need Parliament to frame law to tell women's rights are human rights?'

While Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq, asking the government to come out with a law in this regard, Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman and UU Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court by a majority verdict today ruled that the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims is "void", "illegal" and "unconstitutional". The apex court by 3:2 verdict held that the triple talaq is against the basic tenets of Quran.

"Media has played an important role. This is a big win for all of us, Farah Faiz, one of the six petitioners in the case told CNN News18.

Welcoming the Supreme Court order, Union Minister for Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi told CNN News18, "Small step from Supreme Court, a giant step for women, It is a very, very important judgment. This makes women equal, as they are entitled to be under the Constitution."

The verdict seems to have considered only instant talaq or talaq-e-biddat. Banning talaq-e-biddat does not do a lot for gender parity amongst muslims because men will still hold the right to talaq without resorting to legal action.

While the Supreme Court has observed that instant talaq or triple talaq or Talaq-ul-Bidaat is invalid and unconstitutional, the second kind of divorce available to Muslims is the revocable divorce or Talaq-ul-Sunnat. However, several reports said that the Supreme Court will not be considering the legality of revocable talaq when the petitions were being heard.

The striking down of triple talaq doesn't do much for women's rights. It goes back to enforcing the idea that marriage is an institution where a woman is a dependent in the eyes of the law rather than a union between equals. Rather than granting women the equal right to divorce their husbands, the judgment can be viewed as one that re-enforces that patriarchal idea of marriage.

Supreme Court refers to abolition of triple talaq in Islamic countries and asks why can't independent India get rid of it. - PTI

Keeping the verdict in mind, did Muslim women receive the secular and progressive intervention they were seeking? In my opinion, not at all. Handing something off to the Parliament to consider is barely an intervention. This is very reminiscient of the judgment on s377 where the SC took a stand to uphod the draconian law for majoritarian interests and left the legislation and decision-making to the legislature.

Handing something off to Parliament is barely an intervention

The verdict seems to have considered only instant talaq or talaq-e-biddat. Banning talaq-e-biddat does not do a lot for gender parity amongst muslims because men will still hold the right to talaq without resorting to legal action.

SC has ruled only on instant talaq: Doesn't do a lot for gender parity

The apex court asks political parties to keep their differences aside and help the Narendra Modi-led Centre to bringing out legislation on triple talaq.

Aug 22: SC by majority verdict of 3:2 rules that divorce through triple talaq is void, illegal and unconstitutional and against basic tenets of Quran. Three judges favour putting on hold for six months the practise, asking the government to come out with a law in this regard.

May 22: AIMPLB files affidavit in SC saying it would issue an advisory to 'Qazis' to tell bridegrooms that they will not resort to triple talaq to annul their marriage. AIMPLB lists out in SC guidelines for married couples. These include "social boycott" of those Muslims who resort to triple talaq and the appointment of an arbitrator to settle marital disputes.

May 17: SC asks AIMPLB whether a woman can be given an option of saying 'no' to triple talaq at the time of execution of 'nikahnama'. Centre tells SC triple talaq is neither integral to Islam nor a "majority versus minority" issue but rather an "intra-community tussle" between Muslim men and deprived women.

May 16: AIMPLB tells SC that matters of faith cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality, says triple talaq a matter of faith for last 1,400 years. Equates the issue of triple talaq with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya.

May 15: Centre tells SC that it will bring new law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community if triple talaq struck down. SC says it would examine whether triple talaq was an essential part of religion under Article 25 of Constitution.

May 12: SC says the practise of triple talaq was the "worst" and "not desirable" form of dissolution of marriages among Muslims.

May 11: SC says it would examine whether the practise of triple talaq among Muslims is fundamental to their religion.

Here is the chronology of all that happened between 11 May and 22 August

It’s a great day and a day of victory for the brave and courageous Muslim women and is triumph over male chauvinism. It’s a huge step towards women empowerment… The next step of the government is to bring Uniform Civil Code, Subramanian Swamy tells News18.

BJP Kashmir unit has welcomed the Supreme Court verdict to stay triple talaq. Senior party leader and MLC, Sofi Yusuf, said that there should be no hurdles to extend the verdict to Jammu and Kashmir. He said that a law could be passed in the Assembly to extend it to the only Muslim majority state. Yusuf said that the practice was putting women at disadvantage and the state should not be deprived of the verdict. " I have come across cases of women divorced in most inhuman way," he said.

After the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the Islamic practice of triple talaq, India has now joined the following countries in declaring the practice un-Islamic:

" As far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned the law can be extended only if it is passed by Assembly or government brings an ordinance," he told Firstpost. Kamal said that nevertheless the practice has been misused mostly by Arab Muslims who come to southern states of India and marry and divorce women at their whims.

Former minister and National Conference leader, Mustafa Kamal, said that triple talaq has often been misused against women. He however said that the Supreme Court verdict is an interference in religious matters of Muslims and the issue should have been addressed at the societal level.

"We hope that triple talaq will be banned once and for all in times to come," she said, adding it causes immense hardships to Muslim women even though "there is no provision of triple talaq in Islam," News18 quoted her as saying further.

"The Supreme Court decision is historic, it is the victory of women in the country. But more than that, it is the victory of Islam," said President of the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board Shaista Amber, who has been fighting for the rights of Muslim women told News18.

Former Union Minister Salman Khurshid told The Indian Express, “What we hoped to happen has now happened, it is a good decision.” He was allowed by the SC to assist it as amicus curiae. During the hearing, he had told the SC that instant triple talaq “cannot be justified or given legal validity”.

"The verdict comes as a bold move on the part of judiciary in upholding women rights and the need for equality despite constant and vehement protests from various fronts and fundamentalist Muslim bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. It illuminates the hope that Muslim women will no more be subjected to arbitrary triple talaq by their husbands in the garb of exercising a religious right. Also, the next move is much awaited to see how the Govt responds to the Court’s direction to draft and frame a law Talaq, which will have a major bearing on the numerous Muslim women of this country," Shant Berwal, CEO & Founder, Legal Resolved said.

Verdict is a bold move but ball is now in Centre's court

"We welcome this verdict, which is in the interest of all Muslim women in the country, who were terrorised by the practice of triple talaq. All these women will breathe a sigh of relief now," Raut said.

"This decision will help the country as a whole. We appeal to all Muslim leaders to welcome this decision and use this verdict to lay the foundation of a secure future for Muslim women so that the whole community benefits," Sena MP Sanjay Raut told PTI.

The Supreme Court today set aside the practice of divorce through triple talaq among Muslims, saying the practice was void, illegal and unconstitutional.

The senior Sena leader said nobody should see the apex court's verdict through the "prism of religion".

Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut appealed to Muslim leaders to welcome the Supreme Court's verdict on triple talaq and use it to lay the foundation of a secure future for women from the community.

Indira Jaisingh, who represented Bebaq (another petitioner in the case) said that the judgment goes on to uphold the basic right to equality for all women. "The minority judgment failed to understand what is religion and what is not religion. The highlight of today's judgment is that differentiation has been made on what is not accepted by the personal law board itself which has called triple talaq sinful," Jaisingh told News18.

Pinky Anand, Additional Solicitor General , who represented Centre in this case, said, "Indeed a landmark day. This goes on to be one of top most landmark judgments of all times. The court has given a detailed judgment taking into account all aspects. Ultimately, triple talaq as a practice has been deemed unconstitutional. It's also observed that this is not part of the foundational Quranic law. Something which is itself not accepted in religious texts had to be done away with.

Amit Singh Chadha, who fought Shayara Bano's case, told News18, "The biggest victory is that it has been deemed unconstitutional. No man can divorce his wife in this way. Its a detailed judgment."

Ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leader and MLA Baramulla, Javid Beg, said that there should be no objection to the extension of Supreme Court verdict to Jammu and Kashmir on triple talaq. He said that those parties decrying that Islam has come in danger after the verdict are only doing vote bank politics. He said that India has only joined the other Muslim countries in scrapping this dirty practice. Beg said that there is a provision for reconciliation in Islam and in case they fail in marriage then only divorce is to be followed as a last resort.

Arif Mohammad Khan, the man who opposed Rajiv Gandhi during the Shah Bano case in the 80s praised the Modi government for its resolve in delegitimising triple talaq.

"What is extremely important is the finding that all citizens have fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity and equality and these inalienable rights are uncompromisable," she added.

The landmark verdict of the apex court setting aside the practice triple talaq among Muslims, "speaks volume about the progress of the nation", Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand said.

The writer, known for her atheist views, said: "Triple talaq is not in the Quran. Is it the reason for it to go? There are many injustices and inequalities in the Quran. Should they stay," she asked.

In a series of tweets, Nasreen said: "Why only triple talaq? Whole Islamic law or Sharia law should be abolished. All religious laws should be abolished for the sake of humanity." "Religions including religious laws and rituals are anti-women. Period," she said.

Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen hailed the Supreme Court of India verdict invalidating triple talaq. She said that the judgement was "definitely not women's freedom" there was need to go beyond by doing away with "1400 yrs old Quranic laws".

This act on the part of the second Caliph, that ran against the principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah, did not in any way change the law of the shariah. To think that this led to any revision of Islamic law would be to misunderstand the situation: the Caliph’s order merely constituted an exception to the rule, and was, moreover, of a temporary nature. He also started the practice of whipping the back of the man who wanted triple talaq.

Then a different view of divorce was taken by the second Caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. In the Prophet’s lifetime, three utterances of talaq on one occasion used to be taken together as only one utterance. Then it occurred to Umar ibn al-Khattab that if men wanted to rush into divorce then why shouldn’t rules be imposed on them to bind them to a final divorce on the utterance of talaq three times in a row. It was then that he proceeded to impose such a rule.

In Quran, the prescribed method for triple talaq is that the man pronounces the word talaq three times over the course of three months. In this way, he has the option to retract his statement twice before he finally decides on a separation. This is done to ensure that divorce isn’t happening in a fit of momentous rage and is a well thought out decission.

Congress Vice president, Ghulam Nabi Monga said that the Supreme Court verdict on triple talaq paves way for the further encroachment on the Islamic laws in only Muslim majority state of country. He told Firstpost that the Supreme Court has asked that a law should be brought in parliament over triple talaq which would only further encroach on the political rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He said that the PDP-BJP government will follow the RSS agenda of extending the law to the state through Presidential Order which was done to extend GST to the state.

View form the Valley: Congress says verdict paves way for implementing RSS agenda in J&K

"They (government) did not want to lose a section of their vote bank by taking a decision over this contentious issue. Thus, they were seeking an escape route using the judiciary as a shield. But, the Supreme Court has dealt a blow to their plans," NCP spokesperson Nawab Malik said.

The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) today claimed the Supreme Court's verdict on triple talaq is a blow to the "plans" of the government of "using the judiciary as a shield" on the issue.

Govt was trying to use judiciary as shield on triple talaq issue, alleges NCP

Jaitley hoped that after SC judgement on triple talaq, aberrations in personal laws which infringe constitutional guarantees can be rectified.

SC verdict victory for all who think personal laws should be progressive as well: Arun Jaitley

We have been reading all along that the Supreme Court ruling was not a unanimous judgment and two judges, including the Chief Justice of India, differed from the majority ruling. But what was Justice JS Khehar's objection? Take a look at the key objections raised by the CJI.

What was the two dissenting judges' objection to the triple talaq judgement?

Muslim women, who had knocked the doors of the Supreme Court opposing triple talaq, today rejoiced at the historic judgement striking down the practice, saying they have emerged "victorious" and now feel protected. Apart from to women's rights groups, five individuals who were given instant talaq were amid the petitioners. Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has also hailed the courage of these women for taking ahead the fight for Muslim women's rights

"The AIMBLB does not represent the diverse Sunni Islamic religious practices and beliefs. Almost 90% of Indian Muslims are Sunni Hanafi, and the rest 10 percent consist of Shafais, and Ahle – Hadees. Shafais endorse the Hanafi stance on this issue that triple talaq in one-go constitutes effective Talaq. However, the sweeping generalisation does not take into account the religious position of Ahle-Hadees, a Sunni sect, which does not follow the practice of triple talaq."

"Now, Muslim women will be able to enjoy their fundamental rights and have a codified law that will guarantee them their fundamental rights. Just like the Hindu personal law which has legal backing, the law for muslims should have the same," Niaz said.

"The court has given a direction to the government to frame a law. We have won half the battle. We will be victorious in the true sense only once the law is framed so as to make this practice punishable. There is no remedy for women against the practice till a law is framed," Faiz said.

Farah Faiz, Zakia Suman, Noorjehan Niaz and the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) either described the verdict as a "moment of big victory," "big relief" or as "half the battle won."

Some women petitioners opined that the victory in its true sense would be achieved once a law comes into force, making the practice punishable.

Justice half done, way forward is legislation in line with Sharia laws, says petitioners

The unilateral divorce by a Muslim husband happens because Muslim husbands are not permitted to go to court to effect divorce — and also because the right of divorce in Islam belongs to the husband, not to the wife. Accordingly, a Muslim wife in India can seek, not give, divorce either through a court or through Islamic clerics.

The decision striking down instant triple talaq is a milestone in the life of the poorer sections of Muslim women who are the worst sufferers and don't have the economic means to go to court. However, the other form of triple talaq will continue to remain valid — which will be welcomed by Islamic clerics. This means the Muslim husband will continue to have his Sharia-based right to unilaterally divorce a wife.

"Divorces are few, but when they do happen, it's almost an equal number of men and women who are seeking to end marriages. It’s not that men alone have the right to divorce," says Tariq Ahmad Ahmadiyya, spokesperson of Ahmadiyya Muslim Ja’amat, India. Read more here .

'It’s not that men alone have the right to divorce'

Welcoming the verdict of the top court, Lekhi said the "political will" of the NDA government has led to the judgement, otherwise, the fate of this case could have been the same as that of the 1985 judgement in the Shah Bano case. PTI

BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi on Tuesday hailed the Narendra Modi government for supporting Muslim women in their quest for freedom from triple talaq, which was today outlawed by the Supreme Court.

A law should also be drafted for banning more than two children and ushering in the common civil code, he added in a statement. PTI

VHP's international working president Pravin Togadia said the government should enact a law against triple talaq to ensure justice to Muslim women and to the nation's tax payers.

"We, the Muslim women, are entitled to justice from the courts as well as the legislature," she added.

According to NDTV, Zakia Soman of the BMMA, one of the petitioners said, "We have reproduced verses from the Quran about talaq, negotiations and how it should happen over a minimum period of 90 days. The second argument is about gender justice. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution of India about all citizens having equal rights."

Law should be same in bringing justice to women, says Speaker Sumitra Mahajan

Reacting to the apex court judgement, the former Union minister, himself a senior lawyer, said in a tweet: "Triple talaq was a distortion of original Quranic legal principles. Good it has been declared unconstitutional." IANS

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement on 'triple talaq', saying the majority judgement is a resounding affirmation of gender justice and of equality of spouses.

"Why did the Muslim Law Board not act? This is why these women (the petitioners) had to approach the court. The Muslim Law Board first told the court that it would issue an advisory in the marriage contract to avoid this practice. Then, it said it would socially boycott those who resort to this practice," Bukhari told PTI. PTI

Bukhari said the stand of the AIMPLB, which "considers itself as a custodian" of the matters related to civil issues of the Muslim community in the country, was ambivalent in the matter of triple talaq.

Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari on Tuesday said the issue of triple talaq would not have reached the Supreme Court, had the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) not failed to address the problems of women "wronged" by the divorce practice.

The Arab states that have laws against instant triple talaq include Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. IANS

The judgment has drawn upon the book "Muslim Law in India and Abroad" by Tahir Mahmood and Saif Mahmood and has categorised countries that have done away with 'talaq-e-biddat' as Arab States, Southeast Asian States, and the Subcontinental States.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment declaring instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, has cited laws from 19 countries including Pakistan and Egypt which have abolished the practice.

Shabnam Lone, who was appointed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir as amicus on behalf of the lady in 2014 told Firstpost that this is a great day for women. "It's a split verdict but the majority's will shall prevail. The Muslim Personal Law Board has no statutory powers. It's just a 'billionaire's club'. The prophet detested the concept of divorce and they are going against the prophet's words. Triple talaq was against the self worth of women and it is certainly not what the prophet ordained."

The lower court accepted the man's divorce plea and rejected Akhtar's claim of maintenance for herself. Thus, he was directed to pay a monthly amount only towards his daughter.

Bhat and Akhtar got married in August 2002 and had a daughter. The marriage failed and Bilquees started living separately with her daughter. In January 2006, she filed a claim for maintenance for herself and her daughter. She alleged that her husband ill-treated her, mainly because she had given birth to a girl child. The husband held that he had divorced her more than a month before the child was born, and hence she wasn't entitled to any maintenance.

The case of Mohammad Naseem Bhat vs Bilquees Akhtar heard by Justice Hasnain Masoodi is an infrequently told story of a Muslim wife's claim for maintenance against her husband.

This march towards the Mantralaya, held on 18 April, 1966, marked the first steps taken towards safeguarding Muslim women’s rights and was the beginning of the social justice movement against triple talaq.

The first rally held against triple talaq was in 1966

"The judgement is favourable but the government needs to implement a concrete law to lay down the punishment that will be handed out to the offenders. Unless that is in place, I consider this a 'half-victory'. The law should be framed without any interference of political ideologies and must take effect urgently."

"Any step in the direction of liberty for the most marginalised should be seen as a wave that all allied causes could ride on. The verdict should open our minds to more progressive laws, including on Section 377," Iyer said. PTI

The triple talaq verdict should open people's minds to more progressive laws, gay rights activist Harish Iyer said.

As the Supreme Court on Tuesday banned instant triple talaq, activists urged the apex court to also take steps to decriminalise homosexuality and penalise marital rape.

After the apex court declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional, Asmita Basu at Amnesty India said: "We welcome the Supreme Court judgment. Triple talaq is a discriminatory practice that violates women's right to equality, and has devastated the lives of many Muslim women.

Amnesty International India on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict striking down the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as a step forward for women's rights in India.

Happy because women faced lot of difficulty due to this. Law should be same in bringing justice to women: S Mahajan,LS Speaker #TripleTalaq pic.twitter.com/ktwWanwLWn

Law should be same in bringing justice to women, says Speaker Sumitra Mahajan

Welcome SC decision setting aside instant #TripleTalaq . I congratulate the women who fought for justice. tweets Congress VP Rahul Gandhi

Reacting to the apex court judgement, the former Union minister, himself a senior lawyer, said in a tweet: "Triple talaq was a distortion of original Quranic legal principles. Good it has been declared unconstitutional." IANS

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement on 'triple talaq', saying the majority judgement is a resounding affirmation of gender justice and of equality of spouses.

"Why did the Muslim Law Board not act? This is why these women (the petitioners) had to approach the court. The Muslim Law Board first told the court that it would issue an advisory in the marriage contract to avoid this practice. Then, it said it would socially boycott those who resort to this practice," Bukhari told PTI. PTI

Bukhari said the stand of the AIMPLB, which "considers itself as a custodian" of the matters related to civil issues of the Muslim community in the country, was ambivalent in the matter of triple talaq.

Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari on Tuesday said the issue of triple talaq would not have reached the Supreme Court, had the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) not failed to address the problems of women "wronged" by the divorce practice.

The Arab states that have laws against instant triple talaq include Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. IANS

The judgment has drawn upon the book "Muslim Law in India and Abroad" by Tahir Mahmood and Saif Mahmood and has categorised countries that have done away with 'talaq-e-biddat' as Arab States, Southeast Asian States, and the Subcontinental States.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment declaring instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, has cited laws from 19 countries including Pakistan and Egypt which have abolished the practice.

Shabnam Lone, who was appointed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir as amicus on behalf of the lady in 2014 told Firstpost that this is a great day for women. "It's a split verdict but the majority's will shall prevail. The Muslim Personal Law Board has no statutory powers. It's just a 'billionaire's club'. The prophet detested the concept of divorce and they are going against the prophet's words. Triple talaq was against the self worth of women and it is certainly not what the prophet ordained."

The lower court accepted the man's divorce plea and rejected Akhtar's claim of maintenance for herself. Thus, he was directed to pay a monthly amount only towards his daughter.

Bhat and Akhtar got married in August 2002 and had a daughter. The marriage failed and Bilquees started living separately with her daughter. In January 2006, she filed a claim for maintenance for herself and her daughter. She alleged that her husband ill-treated her, mainly because she had given birth to a girl child. The husband held that he had divorced her more than a month before the child was born, and hence she wasn't entitled to any maintenance.

The case of Mohammad Naseem Bhat vs Bilquees Akhtar heard by Justice Hasnain Masoodi is an infrequently told story of a Muslim wife's claim for maintenance against her husband.

This march towards the Mantralaya, held on 18 April, 1966, marked the first steps taken towards safeguarding Muslim women’s rights and was the beginning of the social justice movement against triple talaq.

The first rally held against triple talaq was in 1966

"The judgement is favourable but the government needs to implement a concrete law to lay down the punishment that will be handed out to the offenders. Unless that is in place, I consider this a 'half-victory'. The law should be framed without any interference of political ideologies and must take effect urgently."

"Any step in the direction of liberty for the most marginalised should be seen as a wave that all allied causes could ride on. The verdict should open our minds to more progressive laws, including on Section 377," Iyer said. PTI

The triple talaq verdict should open people's minds to more progressive laws, gay rights activist Harish Iyer said.

As the Supreme Court on Tuesday banned instant triple talaq, activists urged the apex court to also take steps to decriminalise homosexuality and penalise marital rape.

After the apex court declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional, Asmita Basu at Amnesty India said: "We welcome the Supreme Court judgment. Triple talaq is a discriminatory practice that violates women's right to equality, and has devastated the lives of many Muslim women.

Amnesty International India on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict striking down the practice of triple talaq among Muslims as a step forward for women's rights in India.

The Supreme Court would on Tuesday pronounce a historic judgement on the controversial issue of whether the practice of 'triple talaq' among Muslims is fundamental to the religion.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had reserved its verdict on May 18 after a six-day marathon hearing during the summer vacation.

During the hearing, the apex court had clarified that it may not deliberate upon the issue of polygamy and said it would only examine whether triple talaq was part of an "enforceable" fundamental right to practice religion by the Muslims.

Besides CJI Khehar, the bench also included Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, UU Lalit and S Abdul Nazeer.

The bench, made up of judges from different religious communities — Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim, had heard seven pleas, including five separate petitions filed by Muslim women challenging the prevalent practice of 'triple talaq' in the community.

The petitioners had claimed that the practice of 'triple talaq' was unconstitutional.

The Muslim women, who had filed the petitions, have challenged the practice of 'triple talaq' in which the husband pronounces 'talaq' thrice in one go, sometimes even by phone or a text message, to get a divorce.

During the hearing, the apex court had observed that the practice of 'triple talaq' was the "worst" and "not a desirable" form of dissolution of marriage among Muslims, even though there were schools of thought which called it "legal".

Several lawyers including noted jurist Ram Jethmalani had attacked the practice on various constitutional grounds including the right to equality and termed it "abhorrent".

It was argued that triple talaq was a discrimination on the ground of sex and this practice was abhorrent to the tenets of holy Quran and no amount of advocacy can save this "sinful" practice which is contrary to constitutional tenets.

The Centre had told the bench that it will come out with a law to regulate marriage and divorce among Muslims if 'triple talaq' is held invalid and unconstitutional by the apex court.

The government had termed all the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community –- talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, as "unilateral" and "extra-judicial".

It has said that all personal laws must be in confirmity with the Constitution and rights of marriage, divorce, property and succession has to be treated in the same class and has to be in conformity with the Constitution.

The Centre had said 'triple talaq' is neither integral to Islam, nor a "majority versus minority" issue but rather an "intra-community tussle" between Muslim men and deprived women.

The apex court had said it was keeping open for adjudication in the future the issues of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims as the Centre had insisted deliberations on these aspects as well.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), had equated the issue of 'triple talaq' with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya and these were matters of faith which cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality.

He had argued that triple talaq has been there since 637AD and cannot be termed as un-Islamic as Muslims have been practising it for last 1,400 years.

Sibal had said that either Parliament can enact a law or it should be left to the community itself to deal and the court should not interfere on the issue.

The apex court during the hearing had asked the AIMPLB whether a woman can be given an option of saying 'no' to triple talaq at the time of execution of 'nikahnama' (marriage contract).

It had asked Muslim bodies how a practice like triple talaq could be a matter of "faith" when they have been asserting that it is "patriarchal", "bad in theology" and "sinful".

The batch of pleas had also challenged the constitutional validity of other practices like 'nikah halala' and polygamy among Muslims.

The bench had taken up the main matter on its own as a petition titled "Muslim Women's quest for equality".

The apex court had on its own taken cognizance of the question whether Muslim women faced gender discrimination in the event of divorce or due to other marriages of their husbands.

With inputs from PTI