Adsterra

"Landmark Judgements in India: (Part - 4) Triple Talaq Ban & LGBTQ+ Rights Revolution"

Lawkagyan November 25, 2024

 

Decoding Landmark Judgements That Shaped India: 

Part 4

The Indian judiciary has long played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s social, cultural, and legal landscape. Its landmark judgments often serve as turning points, redefining the balance between tradition and progress. Among these rulings, the cases of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) stand out as transformative decisions that addressed gender justice and LGBTQ+ rights, respectively.

While both cases tackled distinct issues, they shared a common goal: ensuring equality, liberty, and dignity for all citizens, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This article examines these groundbreaking judgments in detail, exploring their historical context, legal arguments, societal impact, and enduring legacy.

Introduction

Justice is often described as the cornerstone of democracy. In India, where cultural traditions and modern constitutional values frequently collide, the judiciary has repeatedly stepped in to uphold the ideals of equality and justice. Landmark judgments like Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India exemplify this role.

Shayara Bano’s case challenged the patriarchal practice of Triple Talaq, which permitted Muslim men to divorce their wives unilaterally and instantaneously, often leaving women destitute and powerless. Navtej Singh Johar’s case addressed the oppressive colonial-era Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships.



Both judgments not only resolved specific legal questions but also catalyzed broader societal changes, paving the way for a more inclusive and equitable India.

Case 1: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

Facts of the Case

Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman from Uttarakhand, was divorced by her husband of 15 years through the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat). In this practice, a Muslim man could divorce his wife instantly by saying the word "talaq" three times, without requiring her consent or providing any justification. Shayara’s divorce left her financially unstable and emotionally devastated.

Her case represented countless Muslim women who had suffered due to this arbitrary and unilateral practice. Supported by women’s rights groups and activists, she filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Triple Talaq on the grounds that it violated her fundamental rights under:

  • Article 14 (Right to Equality)
  • Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
  • Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)



Shayara also sought the abolition of other practices such as polygamy and nikah halala (a practice requiring a divorced woman to marry another man and consummate the marriage before remarrying her former husband). However, the court focused specifically on Triple Talaq in its deliberations.

Legal Issues Raised

The case raised several significant questions:

  1. Does Triple Talaq violate fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution?
  2. Can personal laws be subject to judicial scrutiny, given their protection under Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion)?
  3. Is Triple Talaq an essential religious practice under Islam?



Judicial Opinions

The Supreme Court bench, comprising five judges from different religious backgrounds, delivered a split 3:2 verdict.

  1. Majority Opinion:

    • Justices R.F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit ruled that Triple Talaq was unconstitutional as it was “manifestly arbitrary” and violated Article 14.
    • Justice Kurian Joseph argued that the practice was not integral to Islam and therefore did not enjoy protection under Article 25.

  2. Dissenting Opinion:

    • Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented, stating that while Triple Talaq was unfair, it was the legislature’s responsibility to enact a law banning it. They proposed a six-month stay on the practice to allow Parliament to act.

Public Reaction

The judgment was widely celebrated by women’s rights activists, legal experts, and progressive groups. Muslim women across India viewed it as a long-overdue step toward gender justice. However, conservative voices within the Muslim community criticized the ruling, arguing that it interfered with religious autonomy.

Significance and Impact

The ruling marked a monumental step in dismantling patriarchal practices within religious personal laws. Its broader implications included:

  • Empowerment of Women: The decision provided legal recourse for Muslim women, ensuring greater security in marriage.
  • Constitutional Supremacy: It reinforced the principle that religious practices must align with constitutional values.
  • Legislative Action: The judgment prompted the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized Triple Talaq.



Case 2: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Facts of the Case

Section 377 of the IPC, enacted in 1861, criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” Over time, this vague provision was interpreted to target consensual same-sex relationships, forcing LGBTQ+ individuals to live in secrecy and fear.

In 2016, Navtej Singh Johar, a Bharatnatyam dancer, and five other prominent individuals filed a writ petition challenging Section 377. They argued that the law violated their fundamental rights under:

  • Article 14 (Right to Equality)
  • Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
  • Article 19 (Freedom of Expression)
  • Article 21 (Right to Privacy and Dignity)

The case followed decades of legal battles, including the Naz Foundation case (2009), where the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality, and the Suresh Kumar Koushal case (2013), where the Supreme Court reinstated Section 377.



Legal Issues Raised

The key questions before the court were:

  1. Does Section 377 violate the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals?
  2. Can sexual orientation be considered an intrinsic aspect of individual identity and dignity?
  3. Should societal morality override constitutional morality?



Judicial Opinions

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of the petitioners.

  1. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that “denial of self-expression is akin to denying existence,” affirming that sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of identity.
  2. Justice Indu Malhotra observed, “History owes an apology to the LGBTQ+ community,” acknowledging the discrimination they had faced for decades.
  3. The bench stressed the primacy of constitutional morality over societal prejudice, stating that the Constitution’s principles must guide the law.



Public Reaction

The judgment was celebrated as a moment of liberation for India’s LGBTQ+ community. Pride parades across the country saw unprecedented participation, symbolizing newfound acceptance. However, certain conservative groups criticized the ruling, arguing that it undermined traditional values.

Significance and Impact

The judgment had profound social, cultural, and legal implications:

  • Decriminalization: It removed the legal stigma attached to LGBTQ+ identities, fostering greater inclusion.
  • Cultural Shift: The ruling encouraged conversations about LGBTQ+ rights, leading to increased visibility and acceptance.
  • Global Recognition: It positioned India as a progressive democracy committed to upholding human rights.

Comparative Analysis

Common Themes

  1. Constitutional Supremacy: Both cases underscored the principle that individual rights take precedence over societal or religious norms.
  2. Empowerment of Marginalized Groups: Both judgments empowered historically oppressed communities, ensuring greater access to justice and equality.
  3. Judicial Activism: These cases highlighted the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing social inequalities when legislative action was lacking.

Broader Implications

These judgments have inspired debates on issues like the Uniform Civil Code and the need for anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQ+ individuals. They also serve as a reminder that the judiciary must balance tradition with progress in a diverse democracy.

Conclusion

The judgments in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India mark significant milestones in India’s journey toward equality and justice. They reaffirm the Constitution’s promise of dignity and liberty for all, regardless of gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

As India continues to evolve, these rulings remind us of the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding rights and challenging oppressive norms. Their legacy is a beacon of hope for future generations striving for a more inclusive and equitable society.



FAQs

  1. What was the key outcome of the Shayara Bano case?
    The Supreme Court declared the practice of Triple Talaq unconstitutional, emphasizing its violation of women’s rights and equality.

  2. What did the Navtej Singh Johar judgment achieve?
    It decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships by striking down parts of Section 377 of the IPC.

  3. How did these judgments impact societal attitudes?
    Both rulings sparked broader acceptance and advocacy for gender and LGBTQ+ rights in India.

  4. What is constitutional morality?
    Constitutional morality refers to adhering to the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, even if they conflict with societal norms.

  1. Are there still challenges for Muslim women and LGBTQ+ individuals?
    Yes, while these judgments were significant steps forward, societal attitudes and systemic issues continue to pose challenges.


Post a Comment

0 Comments