Why the Supreme Court is examining polygamy again
The Supreme Court is examining polygamy again because a fresh public-interest petition has challenged the constitutional validity of Muslim Personal Law provisions that permit a Muslim man to have up to four wives, arguing that this violates fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination and dignity. In late July 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Centre, asked it to consider legislative steps to abolish polygamy for all citizens irrespective of religion, and tagged the matter with a batch of long-pending petitions on polygamy and nikah halala.
The immediate trigger: a 2026 petition and the Court’s notice
The latest round began when women’s rights activists, including Zakia Soman and Dr Noorjehan Safia Niaz, filed a petition challenging Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it recognises and validates polygamy. The petitioners contend that state-sanctioned polygamy is incompatible with Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination (including on grounds of sex), and secure equality of opportunity.
They also seek: (i) a declaration that polygamy among Muslims is unconstitutional; (ii) directions to Parliament to enact legislation abolishing the practice for all citizens; (iii) uniform application of the bigamy provision now contained in Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); and (iv) compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces, along with stronger maintenance, inheritance and housing rights for Muslim women. On July 31, 2026, the Court sought the Centre’s response and indicated that the issue should be considered alongside other pending challenges to Muslim personal law practices.
The legal question at the heart of the case
At its core, the case asks whether a religiously grounded personal law that permits a man to marry multiple women can coexist with the Constitution’s guarantee of gender justice. The petitioners’ argument rests on three main pillars:
- Equality and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15): Polygamy, they argue, institutionalises inequality between men and women by allowing men a right denied to women, and by exposing women to heightened risks of economic insecurity, emotional harm and social stigma.
- Dignity and personal liberty (Article 21): Contemporary jurisprudence treats dignity as a core component of fundamental rights; practices that systematically disadvantage women in marriage and family life are increasingly scrutinised under this lens.
- Uniform criminal law on bigamy (Section 82, BNS): The new criminal code makes bigamy a punishable offence, but personal law exceptions create a differential regime. The petition urges the Court to harmonise personal law with the general criminal law so that the prohibition on marrying while a spouse is alive applies uniformly.
The Court must also navigate Article 25 (freedom of religion), which protects religious practice subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights. Past judgments have held that not every religious claim is immune from constitutional review, especially where gender equality is implicated.
Why “again”? Polygamy has been before the Court for decades
Polygamy is not a new issue for the Supreme Court; it has surfaced repeatedly over the past three decades, often as part of broader challenges to Muslim Personal Law or as a component of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) debate. In the 1990s, petitions questioned the constitutional validity of polygamy and triple talaq, but the Court often deferred to Parliament, urging legislative reform rather than judicially rewriting personal law.
In 2017, the landmark Shayara Bano judgment struck down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, emphasising that practices contrary to dignity and equality cannot be protected as essential religious practice. While that case did not directly rule on polygamy, it signalled a more assertive judicial stance on gender-just reform within personal laws. Since then, multiple petitions on polygamy and nikah halala have remained pending, awaiting consideration by a Constitution Bench. The 2026 notice effectively revives this docket, bringing polygamy back into active judicial consideration.
The social and empirical context: prevalence, harm, and registration gaps
Although polygamy is often associated primarily with Muslims in public discourse, data and studies suggest a more complex picture. Informal polygamous unions exist across communities, including among Hindus, but they typically occur outside the formal legal framework. In contrast, Muslim polygamy has a degree of formal legal recognition under personal law, which shapes both its visibility and its legal consequences.
Activists highlight several concrete harms:
- Economic insecurity: Second or subsequent wives and their children may face difficulties claiming maintenance, inheritance or property rights, especially where marriages are unregistered.
- Legal vulnerability: Without mandatory registration, proving the existence and date of a marriage becomes difficult in maintenance, custody or inheritance disputes.
- Social stigma and psychological harm: Women in polygamous marriages often report emotional distress, diminished agency and social marginalisation.
A 2025 women’s rights study cited in media reports underscores the need for compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces as a first step toward accountability and protection. The petition leverages this evidence to argue that the state cannot remain neutral when a legally recognised practice systematically disadvantages women.
The intersection with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and UCC debates
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, introduced Section 82 criminalising bigamy. However, personal law exceptions mean that the provision does not operate uniformly across religions. The petition asks the Court to ensure that the BNS’s bigamy prohibition applies equally to all citizens, effectively removing the personal law shield for polygamy.
This legal question dovetails with the broader Uniform Civil Code debate. Proponents of a UCC argue that family laws should be secular, gender-just and uniform, eliminating religion-based distinctions in marriage, divorce, maintenance and inheritance. Opponents caution that top-down uniformity may undermine minority rights and religious freedom if not carefully designed. The polygamy case forces the Court to confront this tension: whether constitutional equality demands a uniform rule on monogamy, or whether personal law autonomy can accommodate limited exceptions.
What the Court may consider next
The Supreme Court has only issued notice so far; it has not yet ruled on the merits of polygamy. Several pathways are possible:
- Legislative nudge: The Court may reiterate its earlier stance that Parliament should enact comprehensive reform, perhaps framing guidelines on registration, maintenance and inheritance in the interim.
- Constitutional scrutiny: A Constitution Bench could examine whether polygamy, as currently recognised, violates Articles 14, 15 and 21, and whether it qualifies as an “essential religious practice” protected under Article 25.
- Harmonisation with BNS: The Court might direct that Section 82 of the BNS be applied uniformly, effectively criminalising polygamy across religions unless personal law is amended.
- Incremental safeguards: Even without an immediate ban, the Court could mandate compulsory registration of all marriages, strengthen maintenance enforcement and clarify inheritance rights for women in polygamous unions.
Why this matters now
The renewed judicial focus on polygamy reflects a convergence of factors: a new criminal code that foregrounds bigamy as an offence, persistent advocacy by Muslim women’s rights groups, and a growing judicial willingness to test personal law practices against constitutional morality. It also comes amid heightened public and political attention to family law reform, including state-level UCC initiatives.
For Muslim women, the case is not merely symbolic; it concerns everyday questions of dignity, economic security and legal recognition. For the legal system, it poses a structural question: can India’s pluralistic personal law regime coexist with a constitutional commitment to gender equality, or does equality require a uniform baseline on monogamy?
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek the Centre’s response and tag the matter with pending petitions signals that polygamy is once again on the constitutional agenda. What follows—legislative action, judicial doctrine, or a combination—will shape the future of family law, gender justice and the balance between religious freedom and fundamental rights in India.
Download Pdf
