Authored By: Shanmayie Natchiyar M
Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Author: Shanmayie Natchiyar M
College: Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
Court name: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Divison Bench
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Hon’ble JusticeVivek Agarwal.
Date of the Judgement: 11th January 2021
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Smt. Safiya Sultana (Renamed as Smt. Simran after marriage and religious conversion)
Respondent 1-3 : State and police Authorities
Respondent No.4 : Safiya’s father, unnamed in the order.
Facts of the Case
This case is basically about the right to marriage where a muslim woman Safiya Sultana converted into the another religion ( Hinduism ) as she was married to Abhishek Kumar Pandey under the Hindu rites and rituals. This marriage was generally against the wish of her father. Once her father got to know about this he has filed an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. As a result the couple has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition before the Allahabad High Court. The Court has inquired about why the couple did not marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The petitioners has responded that under the 30 day notice procedure, where the couple has to submit certain documents to solemnize their marriage, then the marriage officer will release this in the notice board for the purposeof raising objection. That is anybody can get to know and raise objections if they have so under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, this would have exposed them to the family and from societal backlash. This has challenged the requirement as a violation of their righto privacy, liberty and dignity under Article 21.
Issues Raised
Is the requirement of the notice under Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Special Marriage Act is violation of the right to privacy and liberty?
Should the notice has to be issued mandatory or directory?
Does this UP Ordinance has infringed upon the constitutional rights of consenting adults.?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner:
The requirement of the notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act 1956 which is of 30- days causes unnecessary interference like creating hurdles, interefering in people’s own choices and decisions. Which is considered to be the infringement of the rights of the individual as well. This violates the right to privacy and autonomy. Also the ordinance of 2020 restricts the inter-faith marriage through its anti-conversion provisions.
Lata Singh v. State of UP 1(AIR 2006 SC 2522)
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2(AIR 2017 SC 4161)
Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI 3(AIR 2018 SC 4321)
Respondent (Father):
The father in the other hand has accepted the marriage by saying the fact that she is a major and has her own rights to choose the partner of her choice.
Judgment
The Allahabad High Court held that the section 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act are directory and not mandatory. Also, the notice is prior is not required unless voluntarily chosen by the couple. This has directed the marriage officers to respect privacy and autonomy of individuals seeking to marry under SMA. This has reiterated the right to choose a life partner is the of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 This has ensured that privacy to personal liberty is essential.
The judgement from the Puttaswamy case has recognized privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21. The Special Marriage Act’s motto is to actually revisitand drag the light of social transformation to make the constitution more moral.. Compared the SMA with personal law marriages which does not mandate the notice pointing out the discriminatory impact.
“R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu4, Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar5, and Ram Jethmalani v. UOI6” on privacy and autonomy.It has emphasized that the constitutional rights overrides the social and religious morality. Emphasized that constitutional rights override social and religious morality.
Conclusion
This case is acts as the milestone for the inter-faith couples in India. This generally reaffirms the constitutional protection of individual autonomy and privacy. It has opened the door for revisiting the colonial-era practices under the modern constitutional lenses. It has also opens the door to revisit the practices to revisit colonial-era practices under the modern constitutional lenses. Therefore, the Allahabad High Court’s progressive verdict is a great hope in the time of a religious polarization and the moral vigilantism which affirms the liberty, choice, and dignity should prevail over the societal dogma.
Reference(S):
1 Lata Singh v. State of UP AIR 2006 SC 2522
2 KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4161
3 Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI AIR 2018 SC 4321
4 1995 AIR 264; (1994) 6 SCC 632
5 AIR 2017 SC 1079; 2017 (4) SCC 397
6 2011 (8) SCC 1
