The Allahabad High Court recently overturned the mandatory public notice requirement under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), which required couples to publicize their intention to marry for 30 days. The decision marked a significant milestone in the Indian judicial system and is expected to have several societal implications.
Understanding the Special Marriage Act, 1954
The SMA is a central legislation that was established to validate and register interreligious and inter-caste marriages across India. The act allows two individuals to solemnise their marriage through a civil contract, bypassing religious formalities. Specific conditions must be met for a couple to marry under this act, as set out in Section 4, including no living spouse for either party, the soundness of mind and legal age requirement.
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act
Section 5 and 6 outline the requirement for parties to give a 30-day public notice of their intention to wed to the Marriage Officer in an area where one of the spouses has lived for at least 30 days. Once received, the Marriage Officer then published the marriage notice. Objections to the marriage could be made within 30 days, and if sustained, the marriage could be rejected.
Delving into the Verdict Details
Through its ruling, the court affirmed that the requirement for public notice was an infringement on personal liberty and privacy, including the freedom to choose marriage without interference from the state or non-state actors. Additionally, the verdict noted that since marriages under personal law do not necessitate a public notice or objections, these requirements should not be enforced in secular law.
Furthermore, the court made the publication of marriage details optional for the parties involved. In case they choose not to request the notice publication, the Marriage Officer is to forego the publishing process and not entertain any objections. However, if doubtful, the Officer can request additional details or proof.
The Basis of the Judgement
This judgement drew from progressive rulings by the Supreme Court, such as the Aadhaar case (2017), which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Hadiya Marriage Case (2018) asserting the right to choose a partner as a fundamental right, and the Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India case (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Potential Benefits of the Verdict
The verdict could reduce instances of religious conversion for the sake of marriage, often caused by delays mandated by the SMA, 1954. Additionally, it may facilitate inter-faith and inter-caste marriages, promoting the ideals of secularism and egalitarianism. Lastly, it could provide relief to interfaith couples from being targeted by vigilante groups.
Controversies Surrounding the Verdict
Critics argue that eliminating the public notification requirement could increase incidences of fraud, such as deception by a married spouse. Some also worry that it could enable antisocial activities like forced conversions.
