Gujarat’s decision to make parental consent mandatory for marriage registration has opened a fault line, one that runs straight through the Constitution.
On one side stands the state, framing the move as protection for the vulnerable. On the other, a body of Supreme Court judgments, legal experts, and social scientists who say adults need no one’s permission to marry, least of all the government’s endorsement of a parent’s veto.
The tension is not new. But Gujarat has brought it to a head.
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.”
Attempt To Curb
Senior advocates believe requiring parental consent is essentially an attempt to curb interfaith and intercaste marriages. They have reportedly told the media that states promote intercaste and interfaith marriages through schemes on one hand but create legal barriers to prevent them on the other. And doing so, undermines the agency of women.
Social scientist Ghanshyam Shah told the Vibes of India that the amendment is against the Constitution and that adults have the full right to make their own decisions. He warned that society was regressing toward a feudal structure, and pointed out that most of the MLAs who voted for this are above 40 or 50 years of age and it means they agree to this.
Citing what happened in Panchmahal, he said such measures also fuel anti-Muslim sentiments. He noted that “Love Jihad” is a term coined by them. He said he could cite several examples of interfaith marriages where neither partner changed their religion.
Recently, Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi announced that the state government was going to bring changes in the marriage registration procedure in the state to stop its misuse by “anti-social elements”. He reportedly alluded to those who hide their identity to “trap daughters of Gujarat” for Love Jihad.
He also announced the changes in the ongoing assembly session Gandhinagar which will become mandatory for obtaining a marriage registration certificate in the state.
Now, the bride and groom will have to submit a declaration stating that they have informed their parents about the marriage. Additionally, they have to give identity proof of their parents, phone numbers, and residential proofs.
It may be noted that a gram sabha in Nand village in Mahudha taluka has passed a resolution imposing total social boycott on couples who marry against their families’ wishes. Such couples stand barred from community facilities, religious gatherings, and social functions. The resolution also caps wedding and funeral expenses, bans DJs and objectionable songs, and prescribes fines for violations.
What The Rule Says…
The constitutional record on this question is well established. As reports indicated, in its 2021 ruling in Laxmibai Chandaragi B versus State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court reiterated that the consent of the family, community, or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to marry.
The court said that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity and that such a right is not expected to succumb to notions of class honour or group thinking. It also directed police authorities to frame guidelines and training programmes to handle socially sensitive cases involving the right to marry.
As a report cited, in 2018, in Shafi Jahan v KM Ashokan, the Supreme Court upheld an individual’s right to marry a person of their choice and to choose a religion, overruling a Kerala High Court verdict that had annulled an interfaith marriage by invoking parens patriae jurisdiction and describing a 24-year-old woman as weak and vulnerable. For the unversed, it’s a legal doctrine empowering the state to act as guardian for individuals unable to care for themselves.
In a significant 2006 ruling in Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court had recognised the family itself as a potential site of violence and extended protection to intercaste couples.
High Courts have followed this judicial current consistently. The report also highlighted that on February 16, the Gujarat High Court allowed a 16-year-old girl who refused to return home to remain in government care, after her parents objected to her relationship with a boy of her choice, even though the two had expressed willingness to wait until they attained marriageable age.
Both the Delhi High Court in 2009 and the Allahabad High Court in 2021 struck down the mandatory 30-day notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act, ruling it an invasion of privacy.
Amendment Has Takers
This issue is not likely to garner controversy within Gujarat because instead of condemning BJP government decision, the Opposition parties are actually backing it.
Isudan Gadhvi, Gujarat unit president of the Aam Aadmi Party, told Vibes of India that his party is thankful to the BJP government in Gujarat for bringing this in, claiming that the issue was originally raised by their MLA Hemant Khava.
Gadhvi said he and Khava had received several representations from society and that there are cases where boys dupe girls within months of marriage. He also held that a girl just above 18 years of age can make a mistake.
When asked whether this was against the Constitution, he said the law would decide that but added that it is their duty to protect society.
Surprisingly, this decision also is being publicly supported by Congress solely Loksabha MP from Gujarat, Geniben Thakor. She told Vibes of India that this is not about being against any community but it is a necessity in modern times where young girls often get carried away and are in love Wirth asking people who have some agenda in mind.
Also Read: Ordinance Soon In Gujarat Making Parental Consent Mandatory For Love Marriages https://www.vibesofindia.com/ordinance-soon-in-gujarat-making-parental-consent-mandatory-for-love-marriages/
