Weaponization of the Special Marriage Act

Context:

• The article highlights how a legal provision meant to facilitate interfaith and inter-caste marriages - the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) - is often misused to harass and intimidate couples, particularly in cases involving religious differences.
• It discusses a case from Bhopal where an interfaith couple faced violence for attempting to register their marriage.

Case of Bhopal - When Law Becomes a Tool of Harassment:

• A Hindu-Muslim couple in Bhopal sought to marry under the SMA, which requires a 30-day public notice before solemnizing the marriage.
• Their information was leaked, leading to a violent mob attacking them at the court.
• The provision designed to ensure transparency instead exposed them to social and communal backlash.

Key Issues with the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954:

• Purpose vs. reality:
  • The SMA was enacted to provide a secular legal framework for marriage.
  • The law allows interfaith and inter-caste marriages outside religious personal laws, intending to protect individual autonomy and choice.
  • However, the 30-day public notice requirement often leads to societal interference, jeopardizing the safety of couples.
• Violation of privacy:
  • The Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) reaffirmed the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).
  • The public notice provision violates individual autonomy, making personal decisions about marriage vulnerable to public scrutiny and opposition.
• Social and religious backlash: The leakage of private information from marriage registrars’ offices allows vigilante groups, moral policing, and religious extremists to harass couples.
• Misuse of the no-objection clause:
  • The law allows anyone to object to the marriage on arbitrary grounds.
  • Objections often stem from personal vendettas, communal motives, or familial coercion rather than legitimate legal concerns.

Need for Reform:

• The public notice requirement should be re-examined or removed to prevent privacy violations.
• The SMA should be aligned with constitutional values of individual liberty and freedom of choice.
• Ensure privacy protections in marriage registration, in line with the Right to Privacy judgment.
• The law should ensure protection rather than expose couples to threats.
• Strict action against harassment is needed to protect couples from societal backlash.

Conclusion:

• The Special Marriage Act, intended as a progressive law, has become an instrument of persecution for interfaith and inter-caste couples.
• Urgent legal reforms (for example, Section 7 of the SMA, which invites objections to marriages) are needed to prevent misuse and uphold the constitutional values of secularism, equality, and personal liberty.

Q1. What is the objective of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?

Ans. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, aims to provide a secular legal framework for marriage, allowing individuals from different religions and backgrounds to marry without converting.

Q2. How does the public notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act impact the fundamental rights of individuals?

Ans. The 30-day public notice provision compromises the right to privacy (Article 21), exposes couples to societal interference.

Q3. What are the challenges faced by interfaith couples under the Special Marriage Act?

Ans. Interfaith couples face harassment, social ostracization, and violence due to the public notice clause, undermining India’s secular principles.

Q4. What is Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) case?

Ans. The case established the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, impacting laws on personal autonomy, data protection, and state surveillance.

Q5. Suggest reforms to ensure that the Special Marriage Act aligns with constitutional values and protects individual rights.

Ans. Reforms should include removing the public notice requirement, ensuring confidential marriage registration, and implementing strict legal measures against harassment.