When the State polices marriages

The Gujarat government’s move counters adult autonomy and constitutional protections of privacy

By proposing to make parental consent mandatory for the registration of marriages, the Gujarat government has made a retrograde move. The proposal violates the right to autonomy and the right to privacy. Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi announced that the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, would be amended to stop “anti-social elements” from “trapping” the daughters of the state. Sanghavi, noting that the government was not against love marriages, said it was only seeking to protect “the dignity of girls” and sanatan dharma. These utterances are in line with a resistance against what the Hindu right-wing outfits term “love jihad”. The amended law will require the bride and the groom to declare that they have informed their parents about their marriage and provide details of their parents’ identities. The step undermines women by considering them as lacking in agency and judgment, and seeking protection.

This proposal conflicts with constitutional positions – many rulings by courts have affirmed the right of two adults to get married without external consent. The right is a given under Article 21. In Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), Shafin Jahan v Asokan K M (2018), and Laxmibai Chandaragi B v State of Karnataka (2021), the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to life grants the citizen the freedom to choose their partner without external interference. High courts have affirmed this view. Courts have also struck down the requirement of the 30-day notice under the Special Marriages Act, terming it as an invasion of privacy. The caste or religion of the couple or their parents' consent is not relevant to their decision. In the event of external opposition, it is the duty of the State to protect the right of the couple to marry. Instead, the proposed amendment furthers State control along with familial and social surveillance of marriage.

The hoax of “love jihad”, spread without evidence, carries a deeply communal agenda – it aims to polarise society by demonising Muslims. Similar measures have been initiated in other states, restricting couples from going ahead with their choice of life partners. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand have some of these restrictions in varied forms. That a regressive measure on these lines is not being opposed by the other parties is also a measure of the politics of the state. AAP MLA Hemant Khava and Congress MP Geniben Thakor have reportedly backed the government’s move. The national leadership of these parties should make their positions on the matter clear.