SC no to urgent hearing of plea against polygamy, nikah halala
New Delhi, July 2 : The Supreme Court on Monday refused an urgent hearing of a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of polygamy and nikah halala (a requirement for a divorced couple to remarry) among the Muslim community.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said the matter would come up for hearing in due course after the Central government files its response.
"The Supreme Court Constitution bench will hear the matter in due course," the bench told petitioner Sameena Begum who urged that the plea be heard on Tuesday, saying she was facing threats to withdraw the plea.
The Central government sought more time to file its response on the pleas which the bench allowed.
Earlier, while issuing notice to the Central government, the court noted the grounds stating that though these practices come within the domain of Muslim personal law, they were not immune from judicial review under the Constitution.
The court has been moved by Sameena Begum, Nafisa Khan, Moullium Mohsin and BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the practice of polygamy, nikah halala, nikah mutah (temporary marriage in the Shias) and nikah misyar (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on the grounds of these being violative of the Constitution's Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Article 14 guarantees equality before law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Telling the court that though different religious communities are governed by different personal laws, Upadhyay had contended that "personal laws must meet the test of constitutional validity and constitutional morality in as much as they cannot be violative of Articles 14, 15,21 of the Constitution".
Pointing to the "appalling" affect of polygamy and nikah halala and other practices on the Muslim women, senior counsel Mohan Parasaran had told the court that the 2017 judgment holding instant triple talaq as unconstitutional had left these two issues open and did not address them.
A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar (since retired), by a majority judgment in 2017 had said: "Keeping in view the factual aspect in the present case, as also the complicated questions that arise for consideration in this case (and, in the other connected cases), at the very outset, it was decided to limit the instant consideration, to 'talaq-e-biddat' - triple talaq.
"Other questions raised in the connected writ petitions, such as polygamy and nikah halala (and other allied matters), would be dealt with separately. The determination of the present controversy may, however, coincidentally render an answer even to the connected issues."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
