Inter-Religious Marriage & Individual Rights

The Constitution of India, in harmony with the progressive and liberal values, gives every citizen the right to marry the partner of their own choice. Inter faith marriages have been solemnised in India since Independence, which has shown the tolerance and fraternity present in the hearts and minds of the people.

• The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), governs civil marriage between individuals of different faiths. Recently few states have passed anti-conversion laws to prevent religious conversions through force, inducement, etc.
• These laws, however, have a profound impact on inter-religious marriages in India. They hamper constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25, which are known to be intrinsic to individual development. It threatens secularism and unity and integrity of India.

Individual Rights under Threat

Article 21: It says that nobody can be deprived of life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

• Under the SMA, the sub-district magistrate must be given a notice of 30 days of an interfaith marriage. The SDM investigates the application, sends a notice to the family, and affixes the notice at the offices of the concerned authority as well.
• This infringes the privacy of the couple and violates their dignity and liberty.
• Similarly, certain anti-conversion laws require a prior notice of intention to change one’s religion. A converted person has to then appear before the authority to confirm his/her identity. Thus, at every step, an individual is supposed to disclose his intention to convert and other personal information. Subjecting a person’s choice to an investigation, which can often end up denying them the right to change their religion, violates their dignity and liberty and Article 21 rights.

Article 14: It says the state ensures equality before the law.

• Under the SMA, apart from prior notice, inter-faith couples are required to bring three witnesses to testify their marriage. However, those marrying under personal laws do not have the notice mandate and only require two witnesses. So it denies equality under Article 14.
• Anti-conversion laws also discriminate against first-time convertees by not applying equally stringent provisions when it comes to re-conversion. This violates first-time convertees’ rights under Article 14 since there is no basis to differentiate them from others. There is also no rational nexus to the objective the state seeks to achieve.

Article 19: It provides for freedom of speech and expression.

• The SMA takes away the right to express the choice of partner as it gives families a say in the matter. Thus, abrogating individual’s right to freedom and autonomy.
• Similarly, anti-conversion laws impinge on a person’s desire to convert by permitting the state to dictate who can and cannot change their religion.

Article 25: It provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.

• In certain anti-conversion laws, conversion for marriage is penalised as an independent ground. Curtailing the right to convert for marriage severely hampers the right to freedom of religion—and to marry.

Possibilities and Prospects

The modern vision of a just society is where individuals are the focal point of the Constitution, and laws are formulated from the prism of individual dignity. In the Hadiya Case of 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of Article 21. Thus, Inter religious marriages should be seen as a tool to create a comprehensive composite culture and bring a huge change in the society by creating the values of acceptance and tolerance towards the people of other religion. These marriages need to be protected under laws which due not impinge on individual rights.