<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the validity of provisions of the Special Marriage Act, requiring the man and woman to make public their intention of marriage 30 days prior, depriving their fundamental right to privacy.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response from the Union government on a petition filed by Kochi-resident Nandini Praveen.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner, led by advocates Kaleeswaram Raj and Nishe Rajen Shonker, claimed that the provisions of the Special Marriage Act were also discriminatory as such requisition of public notice intruding into privacy was absent in other personal laws like the Hindu Marriage Act and Islamic law, except the India Christian Marriage Act.</p>.<p dir="auto">The provisions seriously hampered the rights of the couple to marry with dignity, which formed the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner sought a direction to strike down the provisions of law, which required publication of the personal details of the parties to the proposed marriage, as "unjust, illegal and unconstitutional".</p>.<p dir="auto">She claimed unwarranted disclosure matrimonial plans was capable of endangering personal data and life of parties, particularly in case of inter-caste and inter-religious couples, who at times faced violence and honour killings.</p>.<p dir="auto">She submitted that the Law Commission in its 242nd report recommended for removing the time gap between notice and the marriage to avoid harassment faced by the couple from the family and other external sources.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner cited the Justice K S Puttaswamy as well as Shakti Vahini judgements to contend the provisions went against personal autonomy and dignity of individuals.</p>
<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the validity of provisions of the Special Marriage Act, requiring the man and woman to make public their intention of marriage 30 days prior, depriving their fundamental right to privacy.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response from the Union government on a petition filed by Kochi-resident Nandini Praveen.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner, led by advocates Kaleeswaram Raj and Nishe Rajen Shonker, claimed that the provisions of the Special Marriage Act were also discriminatory as such requisition of public notice intruding into privacy was absent in other personal laws like the Hindu Marriage Act and Islamic law, except the India Christian Marriage Act.</p>.<p dir="auto">The provisions seriously hampered the rights of the couple to marry with dignity, which formed the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner sought a direction to strike down the provisions of law, which required publication of the personal details of the parties to the proposed marriage, as "unjust, illegal and unconstitutional".</p>.<p dir="auto">She claimed unwarranted disclosure matrimonial plans was capable of endangering personal data and life of parties, particularly in case of inter-caste and inter-religious couples, who at times faced violence and honour killings.</p>.<p dir="auto">She submitted that the Law Commission in its 242nd report recommended for removing the time gap between notice and the marriage to avoid harassment faced by the couple from the family and other external sources.</p>.<p dir="auto">The petitioner cited the Justice K S Puttaswamy as well as Shakti Vahini judgements to contend the provisions went against personal autonomy and dignity of individuals.</p>
