The question of whether Muslim men should continue to have a legal exception allowing multiple marriages is once again before the Supreme Court. The renewed challenge comes years after the court invalidated instant triple talaq, with petitioners now arguing that the continued recognition of polygamy under Muslim personal law is incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

The Supreme Court has sought the Union government's response to the challenge. The petitioners have also urged the Centre to examine the possibility of ending polygamy through a law applicable irrespective of religion.

At the heart of the dispute is an apparent difference in how the law treats second marriages. Under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a person who marries again while a previous marriage remains legally valid can face imprisonment of up to seven years, subject to applicable exceptions. Muslim personal law, however, has traditionally permitted a Muslim man to have more than one wife, subject to the framework of Islamic law.

The petitioners contend that this distinction creates an unequal legal framework and should be tested against constitutional protections.

Petitioners seek equality in marriage laws

The challenge has been brought by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan and other activists, including Zakia Soman and Noorjehan Safia Niaz. The petitioners argue that gender equality cannot be fully realised if polygamy continues to enjoy protection under personal law.

They have questioned Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which governs the application of Muslim personal law in matters including marriage and divorce. Their case is based on the argument that provisions enabling polygamy should be examined in light of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and other fundamental rights provisions.

The petition also seeks stronger safeguards in relation to Muslim marriages. Among the demands is compulsory registration, which the petitioners say could help prevent disputes involving subsequent marriages. They have further sought legal protections for the first wife and her children, particularly in matters concerning the matrimonial home and financial security.

Another proposal placed before the court is the codification of Muslim personal law so that rules relating to marriage, divorce and succession can be brought within a clearer statutory framework consistent with constitutional principles.

A question left open after the Triple Talaq verdict

The Supreme Court had addressed instant triple talaq in its landmark 2017 decision in Shayara Bano v Union of India. The practice of talaq-e-biddat, which allowed an immediate and irrevocable divorce through a particular form of pronouncement, was set aside by the court. Parliament subsequently enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

However, the larger constitutional questions surrounding polygamy and nikah halala were not finally decided in that case.

The present proceedings bring those unresolved issues back into focus.

The challenge also follows earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with marriages entered into after religious conversion. In Sarla Mudgal v Union of India, the court held that a Hindu man could not avoid the consequences of an existing marriage merely by converting to Islam and marrying again without legally ending the first marriage. The principle was subsequently reaffirmed in Lily Thomas v Union of India.

Those cases, however, dealt primarily with conversion and bigamy rather than directly determining the constitutional validity of polygamy under Muslim personal law.

The debate over religious freedom and constitutional rights

The case is expected to raise difficult questions about the relationship between personal laws and fundamental rights.

One of the key issues is whether polygamy can be treated as an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 of the Constitution. Religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute and remains subject to considerations including public order, morality, health and social reform.

Those challenging the practice argue that the permission for multiple marriages does not necessarily amount to an indispensable religious obligation.

The petition also draws upon interpretations of Surah An-Nisa, particularly Verse 4:3, which discusses marriage and places emphasis on justice and fairness. Some interpretations cited in the wider debate argue that the provision allowing more than one marriage is conditional rather than an unrestricted endorsement of polygamy.

The petitioners' position is that equality between multiple wives is an extremely demanding condition and that the broader principles of the Quran favour justice and fairness within marriage.

How other countries have dealt with polygamy

The legal treatment of polygamy differs significantly across the Muslim world. Several Muslim-majority nations have either prohibited the practice or imposed restrictions and regulatory conditions on multiple marriages.

This comparative experience is likely to form part of the broader discussion around whether reforming or restricting polygamy is necessarily inconsistent with religious belief.

The petitioners argue that reforms in other jurisdictions demonstrate that changes to marriage laws can be introduced while continuing to respect the religious identity and practices of Muslim communities.

What options does the Supreme Court have?

The eventual outcome could take different legal paths.

The Supreme Court may examine whether the provisions of personal law that recognise polygamy are compatible with fundamental rights and whether they require reinterpretation or constitutional scrutiny.

Another possibility is that the court may leave the matter primarily to Parliament and ask the government to consider a legislative solution. Such an approach would place the issue within the broader debate surrounding reform of personal laws and the Uniform Civil Code.

The case may also lead to renewed discussion on compulsory marriage registration and statutory safeguards for women in cases involving multiple marriages.

A major test for personal law reform

The fresh challenge places the Supreme Court at the intersection of two sensitive constitutional principles: protection of religious freedom and the State's responsibility to uphold equality, dignity and gender justice.

For the petitioners, the issue is straightforward—an act treated as a criminal offence in certain circumstances should not, they argue, receive a different legal treatment solely because of religion.

Those defending the existing framework, however, are likely to raise questions about the extent to which courts can intervene in matters governed by personal law and religious practice.

The final verdict could therefore have consequences extending well beyond polygamy. It may help define how Indian constitutional law balances religious autonomy with the demand for equal rights, particularly for women.

Nearly nine years after the triple talaq judgment, the Supreme Court is once again being asked to examine whether another long-standing personal law practice can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Whether the court chooses judicial intervention, constitutional interpretation or leaves the matter to Parliament, the proceedings are set to become an important chapter in India's continuing debate over gender justice, religious freedom and reform of personal laws.