Why is the Supreme Court examining Polygamy again?

Context:

On July 31, 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking to declare polygamy among Muslims unconstitutional. The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, tagged the petition with similar pending cases. Importantly, the Court has not yet prohibited polygamy or ruled on its constitutionality. 

The issue has returned because the Court’s 2017 Shayara Bano judgment invalidated instant triple talaq but expressly left polygamy and nikah halala for separate consideration.

What is the present legal position?

• Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 provides that, notwithstanding contrary custom or usage, matters including marriage, dissolution of marriage and maintenance, where the parties are Muslims, are to be decided according to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).
  • The 1937 Act does not itself expressly “legalise” or create a statutory right to polygamy. The Act primarily gives Muslim personal law precedence over contrary customs and usages.
  • Under the Muslim personal law applicable in India, a Muslim man may traditionally have up to four wives, while a woman cannot have multiple husbands.
• Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse with imprisonment of up to seven years, but only where the subsequent marriage is legally void.
  • Section 82 does not expressly exempt Muslims; rather, it ordinarily does not apply where Muslim Personal Law treats the subsequent marriage as valid. This creates the legal asymmetry being challenged.

What are the petitioners seeking?

Women’s-rights activists have sought:

• Declaration of polygamy as unconstitutional and void for all citizens;
• Invalidating Section 2 of the 1937 Act insofar as it recognises polygamy;
• Uniform application of Section 82 of the BNS, irrespective of religion;
• Compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces;
• Priority rights for the first wife and children over the matrimonial home, maintenance and financial support; and
• Codification of Muslim Personal Law in conformity with constitutional gender equality.

The petition principally invokes:

• Article 14: Equality before law
• Article 15: Prohibition of sex- and religion-based discrimination
• Article 21: Dignity, autonomy and security of women
• Article 25: Religious freedom, subject to public order, morality, health and social reform; and
• Article 44: State’s endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code

Key Facts:

• Marriage and divorce fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, enabling both Parliament and State legislatures to enact reforms. 
• Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code, operational since January 2025, already prohibits polygamy across covered communities. Polygamy, Nikah Halala and Iddat are banned.

What has the Supreme Court ruled previously?

• Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995): A Hindu husband cannot evade monogamy by converting to Islam and remarrying without dissolving his first marriage. The second marriage is void and constitutes bigamy.
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): Reaffirmed that a conversion undertaken merely to contract another marriage does not dissolve the subsisting Hindu marriage.
• Javed v. State of Haryana (2003): Held that polygamy is not an essential religious practice and may be regulated by the State.
• Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006): Directed compulsory registration of marriages of all citizens, irrespective of religion, to prevent bigamy, child marriage and denial of women’s rights. 
• Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. (2015): Upheld disciplinary action against a Muslim government servant for contracting a second marriage without permission, reiterating that polygamy is not integral to Islam. 
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Invalidated instant triple talaq but did not decide the validity of polygamy.

Significance: 

• Constitutionally, the decisive question is whether a practice that is religiously permitted, but not an essential religious practice, can override women’s rights to equality and dignity. 
• The case concerns the broader balance between religious autonomy, gender justice and constitutional supremacy. 

Any reform should combine uniform monogamy with compulsory marriage registration, effective maintenance, inheritance and residential safeguards, while avoiding the communalisation of what is fundamentally a women’s-rights issue.