Plea In Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Order Which Denied Protection To Couple Holding That Conversion For The Purpose Of Marriage Unacceptable
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that a "wrong precedent" has been set by the Allahabad High Court by declining police protection to an inter-faith married couple holding that religious conversion for the purpose of marriage unacceptable. The petition has been filed by Advocate Aldanish Rein. He is aggrieved by the fact that with the passing of the impugned...
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that a "wrong precedent" has been set by the Allahabad High Court by declining police protection to an inter-faith married couple holding that religious conversion for the purpose of marriage unacceptable.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Aldanish Rein. He is aggrieved by the fact that with the passing of the impugned order, the Allahabad High Court has not only left the couple at the mercy of their offending families hate monger religious associations but has also laid a wrong precedent that inter-religious marriages cannot be solemnized at the instance of conversion of religion by either of the partner.
Relying upon the Supreme Court's verdict in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, in which it was observed that if the person feigns to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain or benefit, it would be religious bigotry, the Allahabad High Court had last month denied police to a married couple.
Stating that the High Court has proceeded on an "incorrect interpretation" of this judgment, the Petitioner has submitted,
"The Constitution of India provides for right to freedom of religion and the same includes that a person has the right to choose and profess any religion or no religion at all. It also includes the right to convert into any religion as many times as one wants to with no tabs. Choice of religion is a personal choice of a person. If the Court does not allow a person to freely choose his religion, it amounts to a violation of his or her fundamental right as guaranteed under the Constitution of India."
He has submitted that the Judgment does not mean that conversion for the sake of marriage is a worldly gain or benefit; rather it only means that such conversions shall not be for the purposes of exploitation and only exploitation is connoted as "worldly gain or benefit".
"When two adults of different religion, fall in love with each other and decides to get married to each other against the wishes of their parents / society / religious leaders etc. it cannot be termed as an exploitation if they wish to convert to the religion of their partner and get married. The law and the courts could only interfere if there is a direct exploitation being caused to any third person…," the plea states.
Significantly, both the Petitioner and his sister (presently the Joint Treasurer of SCBA) are Muslims by religion and have married their respective Hindu Spouse under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
He has submitted that he has witnessed the "cumbersome process" and "unreasonable provisions" of the Special Marriage Act, which makes it very difficult for a runaway couple to abide by the said provisions— resulting in religious marriages after conversion to the faith of either of the partner.
He has stated that practically, the Special Marriage Act is only meant for couples where both the families are in agreement of such marriages or at least are not out there to harm the couple.
This is because the Act mandates a notice period and invites objections to such notice, making it difficult for runaway couples.
Citing the process given under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the Act, the Petitioner submitted,
"So the runaway couple cannot just apply with any marriage officer, either of them have to be a resident of the same jurisdiction for atleast 30 days prior to applying and in order to prove the same, they would have to show some proof, such as a rent agreement etc. which is difficult for a runaway couple.
It is not just open to the family members to object but to any member of the society, and the objector has been given 30 days to object and the G couple has to wait for these thirty days.
The Couple also has to arrange for three witnesses in the hostile world that they are already in."
The Petitioner has relied on the observations made Justice DY Chandrachud in Hadiya's case, reiterated thus:
"The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution."
He has therefore urged the Court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court, and provide immediate police protection to the concerned couple.
It is further sought that all the matters pending in various High Courts challenging provisions of the Special Marriage Act 1954 should be transferred to the Supreme Court and adjudicated so as to bring uniformity in the Act for the entire Country.
In the alternate it is prayed that a committee be formed to be presided over by a retired Supreme Court Judge to ascertain and recommend appropriate amendments in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for its effective implementation.