Interfaith and Inter-caste Marriages: Constitutional Protection

The Special Marriage Act is the principal legal route for couples of different religions to marry without either converting. It is also used widely by inter-caste couples. Such couples often face family opposition, social boycott and even violence. Over two decades, the Supreme Court has built a body of law recognising the choice of a marriage partner as part of the right to life and liberty, and directing the State to protect couples. This note covers the constitutional right, the leading cases, and current issues of notice and conversion.

1. The Right to Choose a Partner

Figure 1: The constitutional framework

• Article 21. The right of an adult to marry a person of his or her choice is part of personal liberty and dignity. Family, community or the State cannot override it.
• Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006). The Supreme Court held that an adult woman is free to marry anyone she likes, and directed the police to protect inter-caste and interfaith couples from harassment, threats and violence, and to act against those responsible.
• Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. (2018). In the Hadiya case, the Court set aside a High Court order annulling an adult woman's marriage in habeas corpus proceedings, holding that the choice of a partner, whether within or outside marriage, lies within her exclusive domain.

2. Protection from Honour Crimes

Figure 2: Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018)

• Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018). The Court held that when two adults choose to marry, their choice is protected by Article 21, and that khap panchayats or others cannot interfere. It issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions to State Governments and police against honour crimes.
• Practical protection. Couples may approach the police or the High Court for protection; many States have set up safe houses and special cells pursuant to the directions.

3. Notice, Privacy and Conversion

• Publication of notice. The thirty-day public notice under ss.5 to 7 exposes couples to pressure. In Safiya Sultana v State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Allahabad High Court, relying on Puttaswamy, made publication optional at the parties' request (Topic 4)
• Conversion laws. Several States have enacted laws regulating religious conversion, including conversion for marriage. A marriage under the Special Marriage Act involves no conversion, so it remains the route for interfaith couples who wish to keep their own religions.
• Consequences. For interfaith couples, s.19 severance and s.21 succession under the Indian Succession Act apply; for couples who are both Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, s.21A preserves Hindu succession (Topics 8, 9)

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Is the right to marry a person of one's choice a fundamental right?

The choice of a partner by an adult is protected as part of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21, as held in Shafin Jahan (2018) and Shakti Vahini (2018). In Supriyo (2023), however, the Court held that there is no unqualified fundamental right to marry; the institution of marriage itself is regulated by statute (Topic 27).

What did Shakti Vahini v Union of India decide?

That the choice of two adults to marry is protected by Article 21 and cannot be interfered with by khap panchayats or others. The Court issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions to the States and police to prevent honour crimes and protect couples.

Can a High Court annul an adult's marriage in a habeas corpus petition filed by her parents?

No. In Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. (2018), the Supreme Court set aside such an order, holding that the choice of a partner by an adult is within her exclusive domain and that a habeas corpus court cannot annul a marriage on the basis of its own view of her best interests.

5. Related Topics

• Topic 4: Notice of Intended Marriage and Its Publication. Privacy and notice.
• Topic 27: Same-Sex Marriage and the Special Marriage Act. The limits of the right to marry.