New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong disapproval of the practice of Talaq-e-Hasan, hinting that it may move toward abolishing it. The top court described the practice as “grossly discriminatory” and questioned how such a custom could continue to exist in a civilised society, particularly in 2025.

Talaq-e-Hasan is a form of triple talaq under which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by pronouncing the word “talaq” once a month for three consecutive months. While less instantaneous than the oral or written triple talaq, it still allows unilateral divorce by the husband, often leaving women without adequate legal or social recourse.

The matter came before the court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Benazeer Heena in 2022. The PIL seeks a declaration that the practice is unconstitutional, asserting that it is irrational, arbitrary, and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It also seeks the establishment of gender- and religion-neutral procedures and grounds for dissolving marriages.

Heena’s petition stems from her personal experience, alleging that her husband divorced her by sending a Talaq-e-Hasan notice through a lawyer over disputes related to dowry. She also claimed harassment from her in-laws. According to her counsel, the way the notice was served created legal complications, leaving her unable to prove her marital status and causing difficulties in matters such as school admissions for her child.

During the hearing, the Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh raised pointed questions about the fairness and social consequences of Talaq-e-Hasan. Justice Kant remarked, “What kind of thing is this? How are you promoting this in 2025? Is this how the dignity of a woman is upheld? Should a civilised society allow this kind of practice?”

The court observed that while Heena, being a journalist, had the resources and awareness to approach the Supreme Court, countless women from less privileged backgrounds may be silently suffering under the same practice. “Today we have a journalist before us. What about those unheard voices living in remote areas?” Justice Kant said.

The petitioner’s husband’s advocate argued that appointing a representative to send a Talaq-e-Hasan notice is a well-known practice in Islam. However, the Bench questioned why the husband could not communicate directly with his wife, highlighting the lack of transparency and the hardships it imposes on women.

The Supreme Court indicated that the matter might be referred to a five-judge bench for a broader examination. The parties were asked to submit notes outlining the main questions that may arise for consideration.

The hearing reflects the judiciary’s increasing scrutiny of personal laws that are seen to undermine women’s dignity and rights, even when these practices are rooted in religious traditions. Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down Talaq-e-Hasan, it could be a landmark step toward gender justice in India, ensuring that all forms of unilateral divorce without consent or due process are brought under the ambit of constitutional protections.