‘People Will Pre-Judge Us’: SC Says Public Perception Matters In Talaq Via WhatsApp Case

Rather than immediately curtailing the triple talaq practice via WhatsApp, the Bench suggested that mediation could be a more appropriate approach to resolving individual disputes over divorce.

SC On Triple Talaq: The court was hearing a plea originally filed in 2022 by journalist Benazeer Heena, which question the constitutional of certain divorce practices.

Source : PTI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• Supreme Court acknowledges concerns over virtual divorce via WhatsApp.
• Mediation suggested for resolving individual divorce disputes effectively.
• Broader divorce law reforms require detailed submissions from all sides.

The Supreme Court of India has taken note of concerns that some men are attempting to divorce their wives by pronouncing talaq via WhatsApp messages or email, but it stopped short of banning the practice on Wednesday. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that although such “virtual talaqs” raise sensitive issues, the court must hear all parties before issuing any directive. The remarks came during a public interest litigation challenging aspects of divorce procedures under Muslim personal law.

Court Says Ban Could Lead To Pre-Judgement

The court was hearing a plea originally filed in 2022 by journalist Benazeer Heena and related matters, which question the constitutional validity and fairness of certain divorce practices. CJI Kant noted that moving too quickly to bar all virtual talaqs could lead observers to believe the court has already decided the issue, even before hearing all arguments. “If we bar virtual talaqs, people will pre-judge us,” he said, emphasising the need to consider all aspects carefully before issuing any directions.

Counsel on both sides presented contrasting views: one argued that husbands have been misusing electronic means to effect divorces without proper service or due procedure, while the other maintained that formal requirements had been followed in the cases cited. The court observed that, in any dispute where a husband might be deliberately avoiding proper service, there are ways to ensure notice is received, including alternative methods like publication in a newspaper.

Focus On Mediation, Not Immediate Ban

Rather than immediately curtailing the practice, the Bench suggested that mediation could be a more appropriate approach to resolving individual disputes over divorce. It referred a specific matrimonial case to mediation with a senior former judge acting as mediator, underscoring the court’s preference for resolving sensitive family issues with minimum judicial intervention where possible.

The PIL also touches on broader questions about divorce law, such as whether practices that rely on repeated pronouncements over time should be subject to reform. However, the Supreme Court made clear that it will approach those questions only after hearing detailed submissions from both sides, reflecting caution on legal reforms that could have wide societal impact.

The court’s remarks indicate that it recognises the complexities involved in balancing religious practices with constitutional rights, and that any legal change will be preceded by comprehensive judicial scrutiny.