safeguards. Women, on the other hand, had limited and more burdensome avenues for divorce, such as khula or judicial separation. This imbalance raised serious concerns about fairness and dignity.

The constitutional challenge to triple talaq brought the issue of gender justice into sharp focus. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, holding that it violated fundamental rights. The judgment relied on principles of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court made it clear that religious practices are protected only so long as they do not infringe basic constitutional values.

Following the judgment, Parliament enacted a law criminalising the practice of instant triple talaq. While supporters viewed this as a strong stand against gender injustice, critics questioned whether criminal law was the appropriate tool for regulating a civil matter like divorce. Concerns were raised that criminalisation could further harm Muslim women by leading to the imprisonment of husbands, thereby cutting off financial support. This highlighted the need to look beyond banning one practice and toward broader, more balanced reform.

The demand for gender-neutral divorce laws stems from this larger context. Gender neutrality does not mean ignoring social realities, but ensuring that both spouses have equal legal rights and responsibilities. In divorce matters, this would involve creating procedures that are fair, transparent, and accessible to both men and women. It would also mean recognising women’s right to initiate divorce without facing excessive legal or social hurdles, and ensuring adequate maintenance and protection.

Reforming Muslim personal law, however, raises sensitive questions about religious freedom. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practise religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Critics of reform often argue that state intervention in personal laws threatens religious autonomy. On the other hand, supporters point out that personal laws are not immune from constitutional scrutiny, especially when they perpetuate inequality or discrimination.

The current situation reflects this tension. While instant triple talaq has been outlawed, many other aspects of Muslim personal law remain unchanged. Women’s groups and legal scholars argue that piecemeal reform is insufficient. They call for a comprehensive approach that focuses on gender justice rather than selective intervention. At the same time, there is resistance from sections of the community who fear that reform may erode religious identity or lead to uniformity without consent.

A balanced path forward lies in dialogue and gradual reform. Any attempt to introduce gender- neutral divorce provisions should involve consultation with community leaders, women’s organisations, and legal experts. Reform should aim to protect women’s rights while respecting religious diversity. Comparative experiences from other countries show that it is possible to modernise personal laws without abandoning religious principles altogether.

In conclusion, revisiting triple talaq and advancing gender-neutral divorce within Muslim personal law is ultimately about aligning personal law with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and justice. The goal is not to undermine religion, but to ensure that no individual suffers discrimination in its name. Thoughtful, inclusive, and rights-based reform can help reconcile faith with fairness, strengthening both constitutional morality and social harmony.