Love, law and the politics of consent

Barely two months before the Gujarat government tabled controversial amendments to marriage registration rules in the state Assembly—including parental nod—three women, two of them celebrities, came under severe attack for marrying outside their caste. 

These women, from the Brahmin and Patidar communities, faced protests for choosing inter-caste marriages. In the case of the two celebrities, community leaders organised protests and called for their social boycott. The outrage went further: leaders met state ministers to demand a law prohibiting such marriages without parental consent.

These episodes highlight the social fault lines confronting individuals who make independent choices. But the proposed amendments to the Registration of Marriages Act, 2006, are widely seen as a response to sustained pressure from a large number of communities. These communities—key vote banks for the ruling BJP, opposition Congress, and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alike—enjoy political backing across party lines. According to political observers, vote bank politics explain the muted opposition. The Congress has remained silent; AAP leaders have openly supported the proposal. While sections of the intelligentsia have criticised the move on social media, the BJP government’s move appears to command considerable support on the ground. 

“These are changes communities across the state have been demanding. No political party can afford to upset them—Patidar, Thakor, Chaudhary, and Brahmin—all have been seeking such rules,” a senior Congress leader from Saurashtra told DH, requesting anonymity. 

In recent years, several inter-caste marriages have faced violent opposition.

One of the most chilling cases occurred last year in Banaskantha district, where 18-year-old Chandrika Patel was allegedly murdered by her father, uncle, and cousin over her relationship with a boy from another community. She had cleared the NEET exam and secured admission to a government medical college.

Two years ago, 17 families from the Nai caste were forced to leave their village in the Aravalli district following an inter-caste marriage. The groom, a Patel, married against community wishes. Community leaders from both sides pressured the couple to get a divorce, but when they refused, leaders from the Patel community allegedly pressured the Ni families to shut their barber shops and other businesses and leave the village.

Similarly, months before the state government announced the proposal, rallies and gatherings of different communities were conducted across the state demanding laws against inter-caste and interfaith love marriages. Local dailies and social media were rife with references to bhagedu prem lagna–runaway love marriages.

On August 30, 2025, a Jan Kranti Maha Rally in Mehsana saw participation from dominant Patidar and Thakor groups, seeking laws against marriages without parental consent. These gatherings and demands were supported by all parties. 

Caste rallies are common in Gujarat, where community leaders not only pass resolutions to curb social evils like alcohol consumption, dowry, and extravagant weddings but also issue diktats against inter-caste and inter-faith marriages. And such rallies have support from their political representatives. 

In 2021, ahead of the 2022 Assembly elections, the Gujarat government enacted a controversial law targeting interfaith marriages, framed as a measure to curb ‘love jihad’. The government argued the law sought to prevent religious conversion through “force, allurement, fraudulent means, or by marriage”.

The High Court stayed the controversial section of the law, stating that it interfered with “the intricacies of marriage, including the right to an individual’s choice”, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Similarly, the state government has proposed a number of changes in the Gujarat Marriage Registration Act 2006 ahead of crucial local body polls slated to be held in the next couple of months and the assembly election next year. The rules that mandate parental nod by submitting a declaration stating that their parents have been informed. The draft rules require couples to submit documents of their parents’ identity and residence and contact numbers. Another change proposed concerns assistant registrars, who will have to notify the parents in 10 days after receiving the application.

On Thursday, advocate Bandish Soparkar filed detailed objections, calling the amendments “prima facie bad, illegal, and invalid in as much as they are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 --often described as the Constitution’s ‘golden triangle’ safeguarding equality, freedom and the right to life and liberty. On the most controversial part of the changes that include parental consent, he has said it goes beyond the scope of the parent act of Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006.