This chapter explores narratival dissonance in the Indian judiciary’s engagement with Muslim Personal Law, focusing on how competing judicial narratives – non-interference, secularist, religious, fundamental rights, and “saving Muslim women” – have produced a fragmented jurisprudence, especially on triple talaq. Narratival dissonance arises when courts invoke multiple, often conflicting, interpretive frames within the same judgment, creating doctrinal ambiguity and normative confusion. Through analysis of Supreme Court and High Court rulings, especially Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the chapter shows how such incoherent reasoning has eroded precedent, fostered narratival silence and shopping among lower courts, and undermined procedural justice and minority trust. It argues that narratival dissonance, while enabling judicial flexibility, weakens harmonization between Muslim communal and state law, stalls internal reform, and fuels perceptions of bias within India’s polarized political climate. The chapter concludes that dissonant judgments compromise legal clarity, and transform law into a site of ideological contestation deepening Muslim estrangement from the Indian state.