GS Paper I
News Excerpt:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court order goes against the very basis of the Special Marriage Act.
More About News:
- The High Court order raises concerns about the misinterpretation of the law around inter-faith marriages and calls into question the scope of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
- The issue arose from a petition filed by an unmarried Hindu-Muslim couple seeking protection for their inter-faith marriage.
- While hearing the case, the High Court went into the question of whether such a marriage between "a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl" under the Act would constitute a valid marriage or not.
- The High Court denied police protection to the unmarried couple, stating that their marriage would be invalid.
- By doing so, the High Court's order has reversed the gains in jurisprudence on the right to choose a partner and has rewritten the well-settled objectives of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Erroneous Considerations and Broader Implications:
- Misinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954: The Special Marriage Act was enacted to provide a legal framework for inter-religious and inter-caste marriages in India, allowing couples to marry without converting to each other's religion. The Act explicitly allows marriages between persons of different religions and provides for the solemnization and registration of such marriages.
- High Court's Intervention in Marriage Validity: In the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which involved an unmarried Hindu-Muslim couple seeking protection, the court unexpectedly delved into the question of whether their marriage would be considered valid under the Act.
- By questioning the validity of the prospective marriage under the Act during a protection plea, the High Court has raised doubts over the established legal principles and objectives of the Special Marriage Act.
- Implications for Fundamental Rights: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to marry and choose a partner.
- Courts have traditionally granted protection to couples in inter-faith and inter-caste marriages under Article 21, recognizing the threats and social pressures such couples often face.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, by not addressing the couple's plea for protection solely on the grounds of potential marriage validity, disregards these fundamental rights and the precedent set by other High Courts.
- Broader Legal Precedent: Other High Courts, such as the Madras High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, have upheld the right to protection of couples irrespective of the legal status of their relationship, emphasizing the fundamental rights perspective.
- The approach of these High Courts contrasts sharply with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, highlighting inconsistencies in judicial interpretation and application of laws concerning inter-faith marriages.
Dilution of the Special Marriage Act
- Potential Consequences: If this interpretation by the Madhya Pradesh High Court remains unchallenged or becomes a precedent, it could discourage couples from seeking legal protection for fear of legal scrutiny into the validity of their marriages. It could also undermine the protections and rights guaranteed under the Special Marriage Act, potentially leading to adverse societal consequences for couples in inter-faith marriages.
- Contravention of the Special Marriage Act’s Objectives: The Special Marriage Act was enacted precisely to facilitate marriages between individuals of different religions or castes, providing a legal framework for such unions without the need for religious conversion.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court's reference to a Supreme Court precedent regarding property succession in a Muslim man-Hindu woman marriage (Mohammed Salim vs Shamsudeen) is problematic.
- This case dealt with different legal issues and should not have influenced the decision on the validity of an inter-faith marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
- Misapplication of Section 4 of the Act: Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act excludes marriages within prohibited degrees of relationship, which specifically refers to close relatives. This provision does not pertain to inter-religious marriages and should not have been cited by the High Court to question the validity of such marriages.
The India of today and special marriages
- Threats to Constitutional Rights: In the current social and political climate in India, there is a growing threat of vigilantism and interference in inter-faith and inter-caste marriages, especially those without parental consent. The concept of 'love jihad' and other right-wing propaganda has exacerbated these threats, challenging the constitutional principles of individual autonomy and personal liberty.
- Legal Precedents and Constitutional Principles: The Supreme Court, in cases like Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. (2018), has affirmed the inviolability of personal decisions regarding marriage and upheld the right to privacy and autonomy in choosing a life partner. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his opinion in Shafin Jahan’s case, emphasized that social approval should not dictate personal choices protected under the Constitution.
- Role of Constitutional Courts: Constitutional courts across India have a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights, including the right to marry and the right to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty).
- Recent judicial decisions, like those from the Madras High Court, have correctly recognized these rights in the context of same-sex couples and other vulnerable groups, setting a precedent for protection based on fundamental rights rather than societal approval.
Conclusion:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's order highlights a worrying trend of judicial decisions that fail to uphold the principles of autonomy, privacy, and liberty enshrined in the Constitution. It is imperative for constitutional courts to realign with the progressive jurisprudence that supports individual rights over societal and familial diktats. Upholding the spirit of judgments like Shafin Jahan is essential to ensuring that the arc of justice continues to bend towards individual freedom and equality.
