• UGI USER
  • Jun 17, 2024
  • 14 Likes
  • 0 Comments

HIGH COURTS’ TAKE ON MARRIAGE ACT: AN EROSION OF RIGHTS

Syllabus:

GS-1:Social Empowerment

GS-2:Government Policies and Interventions,JUdicial Review,Fundamental Rights.

Focus:

  • The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision on an inter-faith marriage petition has sparked debate due to its potential misinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, highlighting concerns about judicial overreach and the protection of individual rights in the context of personal relationships.
source:ssconline

Understanding the problematic Order from Madhya Pradesh High Court:

  • Potential Misinterpretation: A recent order from the Madhya Pradesh High Court raises concerns about misinterpreting laws related to inter-faith marriages.
  • Challenge to Special Marriage Act: The order questions the scope of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, potentially undermining its objective to provide a legal framework for inter-religious marriages.
  • Petition for Protection: The issue arose from a petition by an unmarried Hindu-Muslim couple seeking protection, which the court dismissed on grounds of invalidity of their marriage.
  • Jurisprudential Reversal: The court’s decision reverses progress in recognizing the right to choose a partner, contrary to established jurisprudence.
  • Objectives Rewritten: By denying protection based on marriage validity, the court undermines the well-settled purposes of the Special Marriage Act.
Understanding Special Marriage Act, 1954:

About:

  • Purpose: Governs civil marriages sanctioned by the state, not religion.
  • Contrast with Religious Laws: Unlike laws like the Muslim Marriage Act, 1954, and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it doesn’t require conversion.
  • Scope: Facilitates inter-faith or inter-caste marriages without sacrificing religious identity.

Eligibility:

  • Applicability: Open to all faiths – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists.
  • Restrictions: Prohibits marriages within degrees of prohibited relationships.
  • Age Requirement: Males – 21 years; Females – 18 years.

Procedure for a civil marriage:

  • Notice: Section 5 requires a written notice to the district’s “Marriage Officer” 30 days prior.
  • Declaration: Signed by parties and three witnesses before the Marriage Officer.
  • Certificate: Issued as conclusive proof of marriage.

Notice Period:

  • Publication: Notice kept in “Marriage Notice Book” open for inspection.
  • Objections: Published notice invites objections within 30 days.

Concerns:

  • Objections: Section 7 objections can delay or prevent marriages, used for harassment.
  • Privacy: Notice publication can invade privacy, revealing personal information.
  • Social Stigma: Inter-caste/inter-religious marriages face societal resistance and discrimination.

What is Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Ensures marriage rights for Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists.
  • Applicability: Applies to those not governed by other personal laws (Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Jew).
  • Criteria: Applies to individuals who are Hindu by birth or religion

What is Muslim Marriage Act, 1954?

  • Muslim Marriage Act, 1954: Governs marriage solemnization among Muslims in India.
  • Legal Regulation: Specifies rules and procedures for Muslim marriages.
  • Purpose: Ensures legal validity and procedural clarity in Muslim matrimonial practices within the Indian legal framework.

About Article 21 of the Indian Constitution:

  • Right to marry: Guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes marrying a person of choice.

What is Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?

  • Objective: Proposes a single law applicable to all religious communities in India.
  • Areas Covered: Includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, aiming for uniformity in personal laws.
  • Controversy: Debated for its potential impact on religious and cultural practices in a diverse society like India.

About Personal Laws and Fundamental Rights:

Personal laws must align with the Constitution’s fundamental rights; if they contradict these rights, they can be deemed void under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

Misconceptions by the judiciary:

  • Common Practice: High Courts typically grant police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution based on rights violations and threats faced by petitioners.
  • Protection for Unmarried Couples: Other High Courts have extended protection to unmarried individuals in inter-faith or inter-caste relationships, recognizing societal threats.
  • Same-Sex Couples: For instance, the Madras High Court granted police protection to a lesbian couple, acknowledging their precarious situation.
  • Live-in Couples: The Punjab and Haryana High Court also granted protection to a live-in couple, emphasizing fundamental rights under Article 21 over the legality of the relationship.
  • Real Threats Ignored: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, focused on the merits of the impending marriage rather than the immediate threats faced by the interfaith couple.

Dilution of the Special Marriage Act:

  • Contrary to Act’s Basis: The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order contradicts the very essence of the Special Marriage Act.
  • Misuse of Precedents: The court erroneously relied on a Supreme Court case, Mohammed Salim VS Shamsudeen, which dealt with property succession under Mohammedan Laws, not inter-faith marriage validity.
  • Misinterpretation of Section 4: The court’s interpretation of Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, which excludes marriages within prohibited degrees of relationship, was flawed.
  • Ignoring Act’s Objective: The court failed to recognize that the Act aims to facilitate marriages between any two Indian nationals, irrespective of their faith.
  • Judgment Impact: The erroneous reliance on irrelevant legal precedents undermines the protection and facilitation of inter-faith marriages.

About the India of Today and Special Marriages:

  • Current Social Climate: The order is significant in today’s socio-political climate where inter-faith and inter-caste marriages face vigilantism and opposition from parents.
  • Love Jihad Conspiracy: Right-wing propaganda and vigilantism against inter-faith marriages challenge constitutional morality.
  • Unresolved Issues: Pending petitions before the Supreme Court challenge unconstitutional provisions within the Special Marriage Act, such as the prior notice requirement.
  • Individual Autonomy: There is a common thread of autonomy, liberty, and equality tying these issues together, reflecting the constitutional values.
  • Supreme Court’s Stance: In Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. (2018), the Supreme Court upheld the right to choose a life partner as a core aspect of privacy, irrespective of societal approval.

Prioritizing Individual Rights:

  • Absolute Right to Choose: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shafin Jahan case emphasizes the individual’s absolute right to choose a partner over any faith or caste-based considerations.
  • Privacy and Liberty: The judgment underscores that personal liberty and privacy should be protected from societal disapproval.
  • Need for Consistent Jurisprudence: Constitutional courts across the country must align with this jurisprudence that favors autonomy, privacy, and liberty.
  • Erosion of Jurisprudence: Recent years have seen a deviation from the spirit of such progressive judgments, necessitating a judicial realignment.
  • Constitutional Values: Upholding individual rights and constitutional protections should be the guiding principles for courts adjudicating on matters of marriage and personal choice.

Challenges:

  • Legal Misinterpretation: The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order risks setting a precedent for misinterpreting the Special Marriage Act, undermining legal protections for inter-faith marriages.
  • Judicial Overreach: The court’s decision to delve into the validity of an impending marriage rather than focus on the immediate threat to the couple represents judicial overreach.
  • Erosion of Rights: The order undermines the right to choose a partner, reversing gains in jurisprudence that protect personal liberty and autonomy.
  • Social Backlash: Inter-faith couples face societal threats and vigilantism, exacerbated by legal decisions that fail to uphold their constitutional rights.
  • Inconsistent Protection: Different High Courts providing varied levels of protection to inter-faith and unmarried couples create inconsistencies in the application of fundamental rights.
  • Impact on Special Marriage Act: Misapplication of the Special Marriage Act can dilute its objective to facilitate inter-religious marriages, leading to legal uncertainties.
  • Constitutional Morality: Decisions influenced by societal biases rather than constitutional principles challenge the integrity of judicial rulings and threaten individual freedoms.

Way Forward:

  • Judicial Training: Enhance judges’ understanding of the Special Marriage Act and constitutional protections to ensure consistent and rights-based adjudication.
  • Clear Guidelines: Establish clear judicial guidelines for handling petitions related to inter-faith marriages and police protection under Article 226.
  • Rights Advocacy: Strengthen advocacy efforts to highlight the importance of personal liberty and the right to choose a partner, influencing judicial perspectives.
  • Public Awareness: Increase public awareness about the legal protections for inter-faith marriages to reduce societal prejudices and support couples.
  • Consistent Jurisprudence: Promote consistency across High Courts in upholding fundamental rights, particularly concerning marriage and personal choice.
  • Reinforce Legal Protections: Ensure that legal provisions of the Special Marriage Act are upheld to protect the rights of inter-faith couples effectively.
  • Constitutional Values: Emphasize constitutional morality in judicial decisions to safeguard personal liberties and resist societal pressures against inter-faith marriages.

Conclusion:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order challenges established jurisprudence on inter-faith marriages and personal liberty, risking the erosion of fundamental rights. Upholding the Special Marriage Act’s intent and constitutional values is essential to protect individual autonomy and maintain consistency in judicial rulings.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/high-courts-take-on-marriage-act-an-erosion-of-rights/article68297655.ece#:~:text=The%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20High%20Court,of%20the%20Special%20Marriage%20Act&text=A%20problematic%20order%20from%20the,the%20Special%20Marriage%20Act%2C%201954.

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the implications of recent judicial rulings on inter-faith marriages in India. How can the judiciary balance societal norms with constitutional protections of individual rights?

Associated Article: