Today, On 11th February, The Supreme Court addressed the issue of talaq pronounced via WhatsApp and email, saying, “People will pre-judge us if we ban talaq pronounced via WhatsApp, email.” The Court added, “We will not shy away from issuing directions, but that we will do only after hearing both sides.”
The Supreme Court acknowledged concerns regarding the practice of some Muslim men attempting to divorce their wives by issuing “virtual talaqs” via platforms like WhatsApp and email.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi chose not to issue immediate directives to address these practices, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of such sensitive issues.
CJI Kant remarked while addressing the attorneys representing each side in the matrimonial conflict,
“If we bar virtual talaqs, people will pre-judge us. We will not shy away from issuing directions, but that we will do only after hearing both sides. These are sensitive issues, you see,”
ALSO READ: “Hindu-Muslim Union under Special Marriage Act Invalid in Muslim Law”: MP High Court
During today’s hearing, Heena’s counsel, Advocate Dr. Syed Rizwan Ahmed, argued that Naqi has failed to adequately follow the Court’s previous order regarding the proper service of talaq.
He submitted,
“He sent all three talaqs through post…all to wrong addresses. Then he says his quota of talaq is over. This is fraud they are playing on this Court. A narrative is set that the Holy Quran is a holy book. But it is a law book also. Immunity of personal law cannot go unchecked. Such practices cannot be found in the holy Quran. Some Muslim husbands are delivering WhatsApp talaq sitting on toilet seats! He is not in the border or Navy!”
In response, Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, representing Naqi, asserted that his client had mailed the talaqs to the correct addresses.
Shamshad stated,
“All the three (posts) have gone into the address which is mentioned in their affidavit itself… I have gone and personally verified the address,”
The Court observed that if the wife (petitioner) is intentionally avoiding the service of talaq, they can issue directions to ensure she receives it.
CJI Kant noted,
“Even if the wife is evading talaq…you can approach us for deemed service on her. Even a newspaper ad can be put for the same,”
The Court further reflected that the case is less about religion and more about personal issues.
CJI Kant remarked,
“Question is not of religion. But this is a human-related issue. That is why we spoke of amicable settlement of this dispute,”
Meanwhile, the petitioner’s counsel argued for the matter to be referred to mediation.
Advocate Ahmed contended,
“Why is he running away from this marriage? If he believes in Shariat, then he can marry two or three also. Why not get into mediation then?”
The Court decided to refer the petitioner’s dispute with her husband to mediation and appointed retired Supreme Court Justice Kurian Joseph as the mediator.
The Bench stated,
“We respect all religions. While respecting all religions, the Court should ensure the least interference in religious affairs unless we find that protection of internal values are directly hitting human rights; in that case, human rights have an overriding effect. But the first thing is, how to bring these two young people (to resolve their dispute), we will appoint a mediator and send them to our mediation centre. Think of amicably resolving the dispute. Justice Kurian Joseph is a former judge and a renowned mediator. He has solved many complex problems,”
Heena’s counsel pushed for the Court to impose a ban on WhatsApp and email talaqs using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
However, the Court decided against issuing any directives today, while clarifying that it would not hesitate to intervene later if necessary.
The Court ordered,
“We find that there is an urgent and dire necessity to refer the parties for mediation for finding out an amicable solution and a valid dissolution of marriage through valid talaq…The parties will be helped by a senior mediator to find another way to resolve their dispute.Upon our suggestion, the parties have agreed to go for mediation. Given the complex issue, we request Justice Kurian Joseph to act as the sole mediator between the parties.Let an endeavor be made to resolve the dispute within 4 weeks,”
Heena’s plea was filed through Advocate Pulkit Agarwal.
ALSO READ: Assam’s Repeal of Muslim Marriage Law Sparks Controversy and Debate
The Court was reviewing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by journalist Benazeer Heena in 2022, along with related matters.
In her PIL, Heena challenged the constitutionality of talaq-e-hasan, a practice that enables a Muslim man to divorce his wife by uttering “talaq” once a month for three months.
The PIL also requested the establishment of guidelines for a divorce process that is neutral with respect to gender and religion.
Heena alleged that her husband, Advocate Yusuf Naqi, had issued a talaq-e-hasan notice through his lawyer. She argued that this occurred after her family declined to pay dowry, despite ongoing harassment from her in-laws regarding the same.
Heena maintained that this action did not constitute valid service of talaq. She expressed that, due to the improper execution of the divorce, she faced challenges in proving her status as a divorcee, even though her husband has since remarried.
During a hearing in November 2025, the Court instructed Heena’s estranged husband to adhere to the proper divorce protocols.
The Court also raised concerns about whether the practice of talaq-e-hasan should be allowed to persist in a civilized society.
Case Title: BENAZEER HEENA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 348/2022 PIL-W
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Talaq Case