Introduction
Nine years after the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq, the law on unilateral divorce among Muslims is back before it. On October 16, 2026, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Centre and other respondents on a petition seeking uniform, mandatory procedural safeguards for all modes of ‘talaq’ under Muslim personal law. The petition is tied to a larger question: is Talaq-e-Hasan constitutionally valid? inkl
What is Talaq-e-Hasan?
Under Talaq-e-Hasan, a man pronounces “talaq” once a month over three months, and the divorce takes effect after the third pronouncement if cohabitation has not resumed. If the couple resumes cohabitation after the first or second pronouncement, they are treated as reconciled and those pronouncements become invalid. Its defenders see this built-in waiting period as the key difference from instant triple talaq. It is also an extra-judicial divorce: no court, authority or neutral third party is involved. verdictumtribuneindia
What the Court did on October 16
The Court did not decide anything on merits. It sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea asking the Court to direct the Centre to frame and implement uniform procedural safeguards and legally enforceable guidelines governing all forms of talaq, to ensure fairness, reconciliation, transparency and protection of women’s rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21. The bench tagged the plea with a pending petition by a Muslim woman challenging the validity of the Talaq-e-Hasan her husband gave her. kashmirobserverkashmirobserver
The plea also reaches beyond divorce. It argues that the absence of statutory safeguards on polygamy under Muslim personal law, which lets a man contract multiple marriages without ensuring equality, dignity, informed consent and financial security for existing wives, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 15 and 21. kashmirobserver
How the case got here
The tagged petition was filed by journalist Benazeer Heena. She approached the Court after her husband sent the first Talaq-e-Hasan notice through a lawyer, and she asked for uniform grounds and procedure of divorce for all citizens. In October 2022, a three-judge bench of Justices Kaul, Oka and Vikram Nath admitted this and similar pleas and sought responses from the Centre, the NCW and the NHRC. verdictumverdictum
Early observations from the Court were cautious. In August 2022, the bench said Talaq-e-Hasan was “prima facie not so improper,” noted that women also have an option, and distinguished it from triple talaq. The Court referred to the option of khula, under which a woman can seek divorce. By November 2025, though, the Supreme Court was reported to have deprecated Talaq-e-Hasan and indicated it might refer the challenge to a Constitution bench. The case has since moved from a question about one practice to a question about the whole framework. madhyamamdeccanherald
The constitutional questions
The petitions raise issues that go to the core of how personal law and fundamental rights interact. They ask whether Talaq-e-Hasan violates Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25, whether Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 can be declared unconstitutional, and whether the Union can frame uniform, gender-neutral and religion-neutral grounds and procedure of divorce. scobserver
The arguments on each side are these.
The petitioners say the practice is arbitrary and unequal. It is a unilateral power of the husband that sits uneasily with gender equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15 and 21. They also argue that it is not an integral part of the Islamic faith. madhyamam
The practice’s defenders point to the cooling-off period, the option of reconciliation, the wife’s route to khula, and the protection Article 25 gives to religious practice. Some also see a risk that judicial intervention in personal law becomes a political issue. Notably, the Court itself said in 2022 that it did not want this to become a political issue. madhyamam
Analysis
Two points are worth watching.
First, the 2017 triple talaq judgment dealt with instant divorce. Talaq-e-Hasan, with its staged structure, tests a harder question: can a procedure be constitutionally acceptable even if it is one-sided, simply because it is slower? The answer depends on whether the Court looks at the form of the practice (three months, reconciliation possible) or its effect on the woman (no say, no notice requirement, no hearing).
Second, the new plea shifts the debate from striking down to regulating. Seeking procedural safeguards, such as notice, reconciliation mechanisms and protection for women and children, is a middle path. It is a narrower ask than abolishing the practice, and it may be easier for the Court to grant.
Conclusion
The October 16 order is only a notice, and its real significance lies in what follows. How the Centre responds, whether the Court refers the matter to a larger bench, and whether it chooses regulation over prohibition will shape how personal law and constitutional rights relate for years. Whatever the outcome, the case is a reminder that the most important debates about equality often happen in the quiet procedures of family law, not in dramatic headline cases.