The Crossbill News Desk
A proposed amendment by the Gujarat government to make parental consent compulsory for the registration of marriages has ignited a sharp constitutional debate, drawing criticism from legal experts who argue that the move runs counter to established judicial precedent on adult autonomy.
The Gujarat government advocated amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It includes a provision that makes consent of parents compulsory for registration of a marriage.
The government is of the view that "under the name of love jihad*, a game is being played in the state” and “a strong armour… needs to be created for young girls.”
The Gujarat government’s move to mandate consent of parents for registration of a marriage flies in the face of constitutional rights of individuals that are routinely safeguarded by several court rulings. Legal scholars point out that personal liberty and decisional autonomy are embedded within Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to include the right of consenting adults to choose their partners without interference from family, community or the state.
High Courts across the country have repeatedly stepped in to grant protection to couples facing threats from their families. On February 16, the Gujarat High Court allowed a 16-year-old girl, who refused to return to her parents, to stay in government care. The minor’s parents had objected to her relationship with a boy of her choice, although the two were willing to wait to “attain marriageable age”.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari told The Indian Express that such a requirement effectively targets interfaith and intercaste unions.
“States have schemes promoting intercaste and interfaith marriages on one hand, but create legal barriers to prevent them. In the process, this move undermines the agency of women,” Kothari said.
In its 2021 judgment in Laxmibai Chandaragi B versus State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that adults do not require approval from family or community to marry.
“We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not expected to succumb to the concept of ‘class honour’ or ‘group thinking’,” it had said.
In this case, the top court had also directed police authorities to lay down guidelines and implement training programmes to train police personnel on socially sensitive cases which may impact such as a person’s right to marry.
The Gujarat government advocated amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It includes a provision that makes consent of parents compulsory for registration of a marriage.
The government is of the view that "under the name of love jihad*, a game is being played in the state” and “a strong armour… needs to be created for young girls.”
The Gujarat government’s move to mandate consent of parents for registration of a marriage flies in the face of constitutional rights of individuals that are routinely safeguarded by several court rulings. Legal scholars point out that personal liberty and decisional autonomy are embedded within Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to include the right of consenting adults to choose their partners without interference from family, community or the state.
High Courts across the country have repeatedly stepped in to grant protection to couples facing threats from their families. On February 16, the Gujarat High Court allowed a 16-year-old girl, who refused to return to her parents, to stay in government care. The minor’s parents had objected to her relationship with a boy of her choice, although the two were willing to wait to “attain marriageable age”.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari told The Indian Express that such a requirement effectively targets interfaith and intercaste unions.
“States have schemes promoting intercaste and interfaith marriages on one hand, but create legal barriers to prevent them. In the process, this move undermines the agency of women,” Kothari said.
In its 2021 judgment in Laxmibai Chandaragi B versus State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that adults do not require approval from family or community to marry.
“We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not expected to succumb to the concept of ‘class honour’ or ‘group thinking’,” it had said.
In this case, the top court had also directed police authorities to lay down guidelines and implement training programmes to train police personnel on socially sensitive cases which may impact such as a person’s right to marry.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment