The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns regarding the validity of "triple talaq" (talaq-e-hasan) notices issued through lawyers, questioning the very essence of this Islamic divorce practice. The court's observations came during a hearing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of talaq-e-hasan and other forms of unilateral divorce practiced by some Muslims.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh voiced their disapproval of husbands delegating the pronouncement of talaq to their legal representatives. Justice Kant questioned the practice, asking, "Can this be a practice? How are these new innovative ideas being invented?". The court further inquired what prevents a husband from directly communicating with his wife, suggesting that using a lawyer might indicate an inflated ego that impedes direct interaction even for a divorce. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of women in such matters.

The court's scrutiny was prompted by a case where a woman received an 11-page talaq notice signed by her husband's advocate, not her husband. This raised concerns about whether the notice truly reflected the husband's intentions. Justice Kant noted the vulnerability of women who may lack the resources to contest such practices and could face accusations of polyandry if they remarry without a proper divorce record.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, representing the husband, argued that such delegation was not uncommon in Muslim practice. However, he assured the bench that his client would "rectify the situation" and adhere to the prescribed procedure. The court appreciated the petitioner's resolve and suggested the husband personally appear before the court to follow the lawful divorce mechanism.

The Supreme Court's strong stance against instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) in 2017, declaring it unconstitutional, was a significant step towards protecting the rights of Muslim women. The government subsequently enacted a law in 2019 formally banning the practice. Talaq-e-hasan differs from talaq-e-biddat, as it involves the husband pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months to finalize the divorce.

The court's current focus on talaq-e-hasan and the practice of involving lawyers highlights the ongoing need to address discriminatory divorce practices within the Muslim community. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay argued that talaq-e-hasan continues to deny Muslim women equal rights compared to women of other faiths. The court acknowledged the existence of talaq-e-hasan but emphasized the need to examine the extent of necessary intervention.

The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings for November 26 to examine the validity of talaq practices. It has sought responses from the National Commission for Women (NCW), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in this matter. The court's scrutiny reflects a commitment to ensuring that divorce practices, regardless of religious sanction, adhere to principles of fairness, equality, and the dignity of women.