Special Marriage Act provisions that mandates public display of marriage notices and soliciting objections from public must go
The assault on a Muslim man who went to a
Ghaziabad tehsil office to register his inter-religion marriage under
the Special Marriage Act warrants a review of its provisions that lend
themselves to moral policing and vigilantism. In the past there have
been several instances of honour killings and inter-religion and
inter-caste marriages being obstructed and even the couple being
kidnapped by families or rank outsiders.
Section 5 of the Act deals with a marrying couple issuing notice in writing to a Marriage Officer a month before solemnisation of the marriage. Section 6 mandates the officer with maintaining a Marriage Notice Book to keep all notices and entering related details which can be inspected by any member of the public for free. The Marriage Officer also has to publish the notice by affixing it in a conspicuous part of his/her office. If the couple are residents of another district, the Marriage Officer has to transmit the office to that district for the Marriage Officer there to affix in a conspicuous part of his/her office.
Section 7 gives members of the public 30 days to raise objections to the marriage and on receipt of an objection the Marriage Officer must begin an inquiry and can order the summoning of witnesses and documents. These provisions also apply to couple who have been married through religious or other social ceremonies and want to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
The Special Marriage Act is now 64 years old and was framed before the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right. When marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults the question of others having objection to it does not arise until there is a minor in the relationship or it is bigamous or there is coercion involved. The Marriage Officer can easily ascertain these facts through submission of relevant documents and by questioning the couple on the question of consent. The presence of three witnesses as mandated by the Act and the potential of using technology like videography can insulate the Marriage Officer from allegations of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty if questions arise later.
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Indian Penal Code Section 494 that criminalises bigamy, Section 366 IPC relating to kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, Section 493 IPC relating to cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, and Section 496 IPC relating to marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage provide ample legal and penal framework to take care of marriage related violations.
Earlier this year, in January, a Muslim man was similarly beaten up when he went to a Baghpat court complex to register a marriage with a Hindu woman. Similarly, another incident was reported from Ghaziabad where a group led by a BJP leader tried to stop an inter-religion marriage that had the consent of the couple’s parents. In Kerala, a Dalit man who had commenced the process of registering his marriage under the Special Marriage Act with his Christian lover was killed by her family before their marriage could be solemnised. There was also the murder of Delhi’s Ankit Saxena whose only crime was to love a Muslim girl for which he paid with his life.
These are the social realities under which The Special Marriage Act has provisions that make allowances for moral policing and vigilantes getting wind of inter-religion and inter-caste or even love marriages they detest. The Act is being touted as a model for the Uniform Civil Code but even this so-called progressive law is dated. It is unlikely that the present government will move a finger. Again it falls to the Supreme Court to take forward its critique of social morality crushing individual freedoms and privacy.
Section 5 of the Act deals with a marrying couple issuing notice in writing to a Marriage Officer a month before solemnisation of the marriage. Section 6 mandates the officer with maintaining a Marriage Notice Book to keep all notices and entering related details which can be inspected by any member of the public for free. The Marriage Officer also has to publish the notice by affixing it in a conspicuous part of his/her office. If the couple are residents of another district, the Marriage Officer has to transmit the office to that district for the Marriage Officer there to affix in a conspicuous part of his/her office.
Section 7 gives members of the public 30 days to raise objections to the marriage and on receipt of an objection the Marriage Officer must begin an inquiry and can order the summoning of witnesses and documents. These provisions also apply to couple who have been married through religious or other social ceremonies and want to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
The Special Marriage Act is now 64 years old and was framed before the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right. When marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults the question of others having objection to it does not arise until there is a minor in the relationship or it is bigamous or there is coercion involved. The Marriage Officer can easily ascertain these facts through submission of relevant documents and by questioning the couple on the question of consent. The presence of three witnesses as mandated by the Act and the potential of using technology like videography can insulate the Marriage Officer from allegations of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty if questions arise later.
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Indian Penal Code Section 494 that criminalises bigamy, Section 366 IPC relating to kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, Section 493 IPC relating to cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, and Section 496 IPC relating to marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage provide ample legal and penal framework to take care of marriage related violations.
Earlier this year, in January, a Muslim man was similarly beaten up when he went to a Baghpat court complex to register a marriage with a Hindu woman. Similarly, another incident was reported from Ghaziabad where a group led by a BJP leader tried to stop an inter-religion marriage that had the consent of the couple’s parents. In Kerala, a Dalit man who had commenced the process of registering his marriage under the Special Marriage Act with his Christian lover was killed by her family before their marriage could be solemnised. There was also the murder of Delhi’s Ankit Saxena whose only crime was to love a Muslim girl for which he paid with his life.
These are the social realities under which The Special Marriage Act has provisions that make allowances for moral policing and vigilantes getting wind of inter-religion and inter-caste or even love marriages they detest. The Act is being touted as a model for the Uniform Civil Code but even this so-called progressive law is dated. It is unlikely that the present government will move a finger. Again it falls to the Supreme Court to take forward its critique of social morality crushing individual freedoms and privacy.
