New Delhi, Aug. 22 (Agencies): The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Muslim practice of quick divorce through triple talaq, ruling that it was void, illegal and unconstitutional, and against the basic tenets of the Quran.

A five-judge Constitution bench, by a majority of 3:2 in which the Chief Justice J.S. Khehar was in minority, said in a one line order: “In view of the different opinions recorded by a majority of 3:2, the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat' – triple talaq is set aside.”

Triple talaq is banned in several Muslim countries, including in neighbouring Pakistan and conservative Saudi Arabia.

The three separate judgments , written for the majority by Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman, did not concur with the minority view of the CJI and Justice S.A. Nazeer that triple talaq was a part of religious practice and the government should step in and come out with a law.

Justices Joseph, Nariman and U.U. Lalit expressly disagreed with the CJI and Justice Nazeer on the key issue whether triple talaq was fundamental to Islam.

The verdict was immediately welcomed by the government, political parties, activists and the petitioners.

”Finally I feel free today. I have the order that will liberate many Muslim women,” Shayara Bano, one of the women who brought the case, told Reuters after the ruling.

Legal luminary Soli Sorabjee said “it is a progressive judgement which has protected the rights of the women and now no Muslim man can divorce his wife through this method.”

Sunni Muslims, among whom triple talaq was prevalent, will not be able to take recourse to this mode as it would be “void ab initio” (illegal at the outset).

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.

Muslim men are now left with two other modes of securing divorce — talaq hasan and talaq ahsa'.

Under talaq ahsan, a Muslim man can divorce his spouse by pronouncing talaq once every month over three consecutive months and this would be signified by menstruation cycles.

In talaq hasan, divorce can be given by pronouncing talaq during successive menstruation cycles with no intercourse during any of the three cycles.

Writing the majority judgement, Justice Joseph said “I find it extremely difficult to agree with the CJI that the practice of triple talaq has to be considered integral to religious denomination in question and that the same is part of their personal law.” Justices Nariman and Lalit shared this view.

Referring to the verses of the Holy Quran, Justice Joseph said, “They are clear and unambiguous as far as talaq is concerned. The Holy Quran has attributed sanctity and permanence to matrimony.”

”However, in extremely unavoidable situations, talaq is permissible. But an attempt for reconciliation, and if it succeeds, then revocation, are the Quranic essential steps before talaq attains finality,” he said.

”In triple talaq, this door is closed. Hence, triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat,” Justice Joseph said.

Justice R.F. Nariman, whose views were concurred with by Justice U.U. Lalit, was in agreement with Justice Joseph saying ”this form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India.”

Justice Joseph referred to the four sources of Islamic law — Quran, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas.

He said the Holy Quran is the “first source of law” and pre-eminence has to be given to it.

Justice Nariman, in his separate judgement, said “It is clear that Triple Talaq is only a form of Talaq which is permissible in law, but at the same time, stated to be sinful by the very Hanafi school which tolerates it.”

He referred to the fact that triple talaq is “instant and irrevocable” and leaves no scope for reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families which is essential to save the marital tie and was not in sync with the Holy Quran.

Justice Joseph relied on the 2002 apex court verdict in the Shamim Ara case in which it was held that “triple talaq lacked legal sanctity”.

It referred to various High Court verdicts and rejected the plea of parties such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, a private group, that the Shamim Ara case did not create a legal precedent.

The AIMPLB had said triple talaq was integral to Islam as it was in practice for the last 1,400 years.

”Merely because a practice has continued for long, that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible,” Justice Joseph said.

”Hence, there cannot be any constitutional protection to such a practice and thus, my disagreement with the CJI is for the constitutional protection given to triple talaq,” he said.

Justice Joseph disagreed with the minority verdict, which held that though triple talaq was part of the religion, its operation can be stayed (injuncted) by it under Article 142 (extra-ordinary power of the SC) for six months to enable the State to frame a law to deal with it.

”I also have serious doubts as to whether, even under Article 142, the exercise of a Fundamental Right can be injuncted,” he said.

Relying on the Shamim Ara verdict, he said, “I expressly endorse and reiterate the law declared in Shamim Ara. What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.”