Join WhatsApp Channel
In a complex democracy like India, the right to marry is a core expression of personal liberty. Yet, the Gujarat government’s proposed amendments to its Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, threaten to turn this right into a publicly exposed process.
By mandating parental notification and a 30-day waiting period, the state government is not plugging loopholes but creating barriers to the freedom to choose a spouse. While the amendment is framed as a shield against the politically charged specter of “love jihad”, the true effect of the proposed law is the institutionalization of communal angst. Maharashtra’s cabinet has now cleared a similar anti-conversion bill named ‘Dharma Swatantrya Bill’ requiring 60-day prior notice and registration, escalating the trend across BJP-ruled states.”
Though political leaders across parties in Gujarat have welcomed it, the amendment shifts the enforcement of social orthodoxy to the bureaucracy, at the cost of constitutional morality.
State Disclosure Risks
The amendment ignores social realities. By requiring authorities to notify parents within 10 working days, it effectively alerts those most likely to obstruct an interfaith marriage, and may trigger ‘honor’ violence. This will disregard the Supreme Court’s direction in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, in which it issued directives to protect inter-caste and inter-faith couples from extralegal diktats, such as those issued by Khap Panchayats.
When the State compels disclosure, it removes the anonymity that often protects couples from retaliation. The Registrar’s 30-day ‘satisfaction’ period then becomes a period of heightened risk. Personal laws do not require parental consent. Even under the Special Marriage Act framework, the law’s focus is adult consent, not parental approval. This is why the amendment cannot be assessed as a mere change in the administration of forced marriage.
Gujarat’s move follows a troubled path already trodden by the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. They passed ‘anti-conversion’ laws said to curb forced conversions linked to marriage, but in practice, these have often enabled harassment. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of UP highlighted the dangers of these laws, noting that they allow even strangers to file a complaint against the concerned individual for alleged conversion.
Maharashtra’s new draft mandates 60-day notice for conversions, with FIRs on family complaints. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, architect of our Constitution, rejected such gatekeeping on personal bonds. In defending the Hindu Code Bill, he insisted marriage is a secular contract between equals, not a sacrament requiring community sanction or parental veto.To subject it to state-family scrutiny is to betray his vision of individual autonomy over caste and religious dictates.
The Court also criticized the “onerous” or “exhausting” procedures that require a person to declare their private beliefs to the District Magistrate for a police inquiry. In Uttar Pradesh, despite over 800 cases and nearly 1,700 arrests, almost none have resulted in actual convictions for fraud. The conviction rate reveals the true nature and efficacy of the law, and it means the law was framed to demoralize couples from marrying outside their religion rather than controlling forced conversion.
The Interplay of Liberty and Conscience
The constitutional infirmity of this move lies at the intersection of Articles 21 and 25. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, as affirmed in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, including the absolute right to marry without parental consent.
Mandatory parental intimation also burdens adults’ freedom of conscience under Article 25, by treating faith and marital choice as matters for family oversight rather than personal belief.
When the State demands parental Aadhaar details, it is resurrecting the “notice and clearance” regime that the judiciary has been steadily dismantling in the Special Marriage Act 1954.
The legality of such a move remains shaky. In the landmark Hadiya case (Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.), the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the right to choose a spouse is central to the right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court reminded us that the State cannot substitute its judgment for that of competent adults.
The Gujarat government’s justification, protecting the “dignity of girls,” is a paternalistic trope that fails the test of proportionality. If the aim is to prevent fraud, identity verification and targeted inquiry in specific cases are sufficient. Mandating parental notification serves no purpose other than to appease the forces of endogamy and communal segregation.
India’s criminal code already prosecutes impersonation and coercion. Gujarat’s overbroad surveillance burdens all marriages despite unproven ‘love jihad’ claims. The larger question is whether intimate bonds should require state-family clearance, risking constitutional morality itself.
Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this article/column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of South Asian Herald.
