The Supreme Court’s majority decision was based on the rationale that triple talaq, being instantaneous and irrevocable, is inherently arbitrary as it allows men to unilaterally dissolve a marriage without any safeguards for women, thus violating Article 14's prohibition of discrimination and guarantee of equality . The underlying principles inferred include a commitment to uphold substantive equality and prevent arbitrary practices that have a disproportionate adverse impact on women's rights. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing practices that contravene constitutional protections, emphasizing fairness and legal protection for vulnerable groups .

The Shayara Bano case underscores the tension between constitutional principles, such as equality and non-discrimination, and religious practices upheld in personal laws. The core issues revolved around whether the practice of triple talaq, a religiously sanctioned method of divorce, could be subject to constitutional scrutiny . The case highlighted the conflict between the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 and the demand for gender equality under Articles 14 and 21 . The split verdict encapsulates the ongoing struggle to balance individual rights with communal religious practices, highlighting the judiciary's role in interpreting personal laws within constitutional frameworks .

The respondents argued that triple talaq is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion . They also contended that the judiciary should refrain from interfering in personal laws as they are rooted in religious beliefs and traditions . Moreover, they suggested that any reforms to personal laws should be left to the legislature, proposing that this area falls within the legislative domain rather than the judiciary’s scope .

The minority opinion suggested a stay on the practice of triple talaq for six months to allow Parliament to enact a law, recognizing the legislative body's role in revising personal laws . This highlights the dynamic interplay between judicial directives and legislative action, potentially setting a precedent for future legal reform in personal laws. It suggests a judicial acknowledgment of the complexities involved in balancing religious freedom with individual rights and the importance of a legislative framework to address such issues . The impact could lead to more legislative scrutiny and reform in matters traditionally governed by personal laws, perhaps encouraging a similar approach in other personal law issues in India.

The Supreme Court ruled with a 3:2 majority that triple talaq is not an essential religious practice and thus not protected under Article 25. Justice Kurian Joseph stated that it does not constitute an essential aspect of Islamic faith and therefore does not enjoy constitutional protection .

The majority opinion reflects a prioritization of individual rights over religious practices by ruling triple talaq unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14's guarantee of equality . They concluded that the practice was arbitrary and not essential to Islam, hence not protected by Article 25 . The minority opinion suggested that religious freedom under Article 25 should protect triple talaq as it is part of Muslim personal law, indicating a higher weight given to religious autonomy . However, they also recommended legislative intervention, suggesting a nuanced approach that acknowledges the need for formal legal amendments to personal law .

The practice of triple talaq posed challenges to the constitutional rights of Muslim women, particularly relating to Articles 14 and 21. Article 14's equality before the law was challenged as the practice allowed men to unilaterally terminate marriages, resulting in gender-based discrimination and unequal treatment under personal laws . Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty was compromised by the lack of procedural safeguards for women, leaving them vulnerable to arbitrary divorce without recourse . This reflected broader challenges in reconciling personal law with constitutional guarantees of non-discrimination and protection of individual rights.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, which Shayara Bano argued was violated as triple talaq allowed gender-based discrimination against women by empowering men to end marriages unilaterally . Article 21, protecting the right to life and personal liberty, was claimed to be breached due to the arbitrary nature of the practice, which subjected women to impulsive and inequitable treatment . These arguments reflect a legal framework supportive of gender equality and protective of women's rights, ensuring that practices violating fundamental rights are subject to review and change .

The primary constitutional articles challenged were Articles 14, 15, and 21. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality, which Shayara Bano argued was violated as triple talaq discriminated against Muslim women by allowing men to unilaterally end marriages without safeguards . Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and the practice was argued to infringe upon this article by discriminating against women based on sex and religion . Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was also cited, with the petitioner arguing that the arbitrary nature of triple talaq violated this right .

Shayara Bano's arguments invoked CEDAW to highlight that the practice of triple talaq was inconsistent with India's international obligations to eliminate discrimination against women . The convention obligates signatory countries, including India, to pursue policies that eliminate gender-based discrimination, thereby supporting the stance that triple talaq violates women's rights to equality and non-discrimination on a global scale .