Marriage between consenting adults need no permission
The law is clear: when two consenting adults decide to marry, no one—not family, society or the State—can interfere. Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has often said that choosing a life partner is an individual decision. Despite this, the Gujarat government now wants to change the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 to require parental consent and mandatory notification for registration. Applications would need statements confirming that parents have been informed, electronically or in person. This is more than a simple procedural change; it is a direct attack on personal liberty.
This is also a clear contradiction. At eighteen, a person can vote, help shape governments and even run for some offices. The State sees adults as mature enough to decide the country’s future. Yet, when choosing a spouse, that same adult is seen as unable to decide for himself or herself. How can an adult be trusted with political rights but denied basic personal freedom?
Kerala’s controversial Hadiya case made this conflict clear. In 2016, Hadiya, 24, previously known as Akhila Ashokan, converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan. In 2017, the Kerala High Court annulled the marriage, called her “weak and vulnerable”, and put her in her parents’ custody. The court used parens patriae, a doctrine meant for minors or the mentally incapacitated. But Hadiya was neither—she had made her choice clear. In 2018, the Supreme Court restored her marriage, saying that parental concern cannot override an adult’s constitutional freedom. The court said that the right to choose a partner is part of dignity and identity, and is at the heart of privacy, which cannot be violated.
Gujarat’s proposed change must be understood in this constitutional context. These rules could make couples more vulnerable to pressure, especially in interfaith or inter-caste marriages, which families often resist. Warnings about men ‘posing’ under false identities repeat the old and discredited ‘love jihad’ story, turning private choices into political issues. This way of thinking comes from the age-old habit of controlling relationships, based on the idea that family honour and community approval should decide who someone marries. But in a constitutional democracy, the State should rise above these fears, not support them with laws. When two adults make a thoughtful choice, the law should stand by them, not over them.