SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954

CONTEXT

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 requiring couples to give a notice declaring their intent to marry 30 days before their marriage.

While the petition reads, "The impugned provisions by throwing the personal information of the individuals open to public scrutiny, seriously damage one's right to have control over her or his personal information and its accessibility. By making the personal details of the couple accessible to everyone, the very right of the couple to be the decision makers of their marriage is being hampered by the state.

COURT STAND ON PETITION

• The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the SMA under which couples seek refuge for interfaith and inter-caste marriages.
• The writ petition has called these provisions violative of the right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution as they require couples to give a notice 30 days before the date of marriage inviting objections from the public.
• The writ petition filed by counsels K.R.Sripathi and Anupama Sripathi has also said that the provisions contravene article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, and sex as well as article 15 on right to equality as these requirements are absent in personal laws.
• A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M.Trivedi rejected the writ petition because the petitioner, a 35-year-old Athira Sujatha, was no longer an aggrieved party as she had already solemnized her marriage under SMA.
• Another writ Petition in Nandini Praveen vs. Union of India &others filed on similar grounds was admitted by the Supreme Court in 2020 and the government’s reply is awaited.

PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED

• Section 5 of the SMA requires couples getting married under it to give notice to the Marriage officer 30 days before the date of marriage.
• The writ seeks to strike down provisions that follow in section 6 to section 10
• Section 6-It requires such a notice to be then entered into the Marriage Notice Book maintained by the Marriage officer, which can be inspected by any person desirous of inspecting the same.
• These notices have to be also affixed at a conspicuous place in the office of the Marriage Officer so that anyone can object to the marriage.
• Section 7-It provides the process for objecting such as if either party has a living spouse, is incapable of giving consent due to "unsoundness of mind “or is suffering from a mental disorder resulting in the person being unfit for marriage or procreation.
• Section 8 –specifies the inquiry procedure to be followed after an objection has been submitted.

HOW THESE PROVISIONS MAKE COUPLES VULNERABLE

• These public notices have been used by anti-social elements to harass couples getting married. In Athira’s case, which got married in 2019 under SMA, her marriage notice containing her address was circulated on Facebook and WhatsApp calling on people to visit her parents and make them aware of her marriage.
• For many others who often marry without their parent's consent, this can be life-threatening.
• The Haryana government has laid down 16 prerequisites which ask couples to issue a notice in a newspaper and that such notices be sent to their parents
• In certain states, couples have to seek a no –objection certificate from their parents.
• The Maharashtra Department of Registration and stamps publicly shares the details of couples marrying under SMA on its website.
• Many also complain about the behaviour of the staff at the SDM’s office that often deletes or delays applications and dissuades couples from marrying under SMA and asks them to convert at an Arya Samaj temple.
• With as many as 11 states passing anti-conversion (or so-called love jihad) laws, parents and the state are now armed to punish and harass such couples.