Gujarat to make parent initmation mandatory for marriage, critics cite Hadiya case

Any marriage held in Gujarat may soon have to be conducted with the full knowledge of the couple’s parents, if proposed amendments to the state’s marriage registration rules are implemented.

The state government has proposed changes under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act that would require couples to declare whether they have informed their parents about their marriage, while authorities would also be mandated to notify parents during the registration process.

The move, announced in the state Assembly on Friday, is aimed at tightening procedures around marriage registration, particularly in cases involving elopements and instances of “love jihad”.

Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi, who announced the proposals, alleged that “innocent girls are being trapped” and such practices were spreading “like termites” in society, asserting that the government could no longer ignore the issue.

However, the proposed amendments could face legal scrutiny, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that the right of two consenting adults to marry is a fundamental right under the Constitution, emphasising individual autonomy.

In the landmark Hadiya case, involving a Kerala woman, Akhila (later Hadiya), who married Shafin Jahan, the court made it clear that adult Indians are free to choose their partners, even if parents feel their rights to protect their children have been transgressed. The court has specified that "choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state".

Many on the internet cited the 2018 Hadiya case verdict to counter the new rules proposed in Gujarat.

KEY PROPOSED CHANGES

According to the draft rules shared by the minister’s office, every marriage registration application must be submitted before an Assistant Registrar along with a declaration stating whether the bride and groom have informed their parents about the marriage.

Applicants will also be required to provide the names, addresses, Aadhaar details, and contact information of their parents.

Once the Assistant Registrar is satisfied with the application, parents of both parties will be notified within ten working days. The application will then be forwarded to the Registrar of the concerned district or taluka, and the marriage will be registered after 30 days if all requirements are met.

The details will also be uploaded to a government portal proposed to be created for the purpose.

Officials clarified that objections and suggestions from the public have been invited for 30 days through the Health and Family Welfare Department’s website, after which the final rules will be notified.

FIXING THE LOOPHOLES: GOVERNMENT

Sanghavi said the government was “not against love” but would act strictly against those who “defame love through deceit”. He described marriage as a sacred institution rooted in Indian traditions and said fraudulent practices involving fake identities could have serious social and cultural consequences.

“Our government’s view is clear and unequivocal: if anyone tries to harm someone by posing as someone else, strict action will be taken,” he said in the Assembly.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THE HADIYA CASE

The interfaith marriage of Kerala natives Hadiya and Shafin Jahan had triggered a national debate over alleged 'love jihad' and even saw an investigation by the NIA, before it ended in a landmark ruling on personal liberty and autonomy. In 2018, the Supreme Court restored the couple’s marriage, which had earlier been annulled by the Kerala High Court, holding that an adult woman has "absolute autonomy over her person".

A bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, along with Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, delivered concurring opinions emphasising that "expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity".

Rejecting allegations of “love jihad” and upholding her decision to convert to Islam, the court observed that faith is intrinsic to a person’s meaningful existence, and "choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it, the right of choice becomes a shadow."

Referring to objections raised by Hadiya’s father, the court said he may feel there had been an “enormous transgression” of his right to protect his daughter, but that viewpoint “cannot be allowed to curtail her fundamental rights”.

"Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible," the court said.

Justice Chandrachud, in his separate opinion, underscored that the choice of a partner lies within the exclusive domain of each individual and that the intimacies of marriage fall within a core zone of privacy that is inviolable.

“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution,” he said, adding that courts must safeguard these freedoms from state intrusion.

He added in the verdict, "Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms."

The Gujarjat government said the final decision on implementing the amendments would be taken after reviewing public feedback received during the consultation period.

- Ends