Indian courts face a difficult challenge: how to balance religious personal laws with the Constitution’s promise of equality and justice for all citizens. This conflict is most visible in women’s rights cases, where religious traditions often deny women equal treatment. Important cases like Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001), Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), and ongoing cases like Sameena Begum v. Union of India on polygamy and nikah halala show how courts are trying to protect women’s rights while respecting religious freedom. This research uses three methods. First, it studies laws and court judgments to see how judges have dealt with this problem. Second, it compares India with other countries like Islamic nations and the United Kingdom to learn how they handle similar issues. Third, it analyzes whether court decisions actually help women or go beyond what courts should do. The research also looks at the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which says courts must protect the Constitution’s basic principles. The paper argues that while court decisions have pushed for social change and helped women, real progress needs three things working together: courts protecting rights, Parliament making new laws, and society accepting these changes.