Court case(2017) 9 SCC 1

Shayara Bano was divorced by her husband by pronouncing 'talaq' three times in one sitting. She petitioned under Article 32 for a declaration that talaq-e-biddat, polygamy and nikah halala were unconstitutional. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board defended the practice as part of personal law protected by Article 25 and outside Article 13. The Union of India supported the petitioner.

By three to two the practice was set aside. Nariman J (with Lalit J) held that the 1937 Act, by recognising and enforcing triple talaq, made it statutory law within Article 13(3); the practice, which permits a Muslim husband to break a marriage capriciously and irrevocably without any attempt at reconciliation, is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14. He rejected the view in State of A.P. v. McDowell (1996) that arbitrariness cannot invalidate legislation, holding that manifest arbitrariness, meaning something done capriciously, irrationally or without adequate determining principle, or excessively and disproportionately, is a ground to strike down plenary legislation. Kurian Joseph J concurred on the ground that triple talaq is against the Quran and therefore not an essential practice (following Shamim Ara). Khehar CJ and Nazeer J dissented, holding the practice part of personal law protected by Article 25, and urged Parliament to legislate.