NEW DELHI: As the Supreme Court deliberates on the provisions of Special Marriage Act (SMA) as part of the ongoing hearing on the legality of same-sex marriages, interfaith couples Athira Sujatha and Shameem couldn’t be happier about it.
Two years ago, the couple moved the SC challenging the provisions of the 30-day prior notice provision in the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Though the court dismissed the petition last year, Athira believes that it was the beginning of a change.
“It took two years for the SC to even hear it. It dismissed the petition on the ground that I’m no longer an aggrieved party because I was already married. The technicalities have invalidated my struggle. But I am glad that now the same SC is observing that the publishing of personal information of interfaith couples 30-day prior to marriage is ‘patriarchal’,” Athira told this correspondent.
The couple decided to campaign against the one month notice after their personal information got leaked on Whats app groups and social media after submitting the application. While the SMA provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions or castes, Section 6 directs the marriage officer to issue a public notice for marriage applications under the Act, and Section 7 invites objections to these applications.
While hearing the case, CJI DY Chandrachud observed that the 30-day notice clause under the Act, is “patriarchal” and lays couples “open for invasion by the society”. “When I asked the registrar about this 30 day notice period, he told me that it is to prevent fraudulent marriage. So my question to him was that it can happen with anyone. Why singling out only interfaith marriages? If the government wants to prevent fraud in marriage it has to come up with a better system. This is an infringement of my basic rights,” said Athira.
If the SMA is the only viable route for interfaith couples to register their marriages, the 30-day notice period under SMA is being misused by authorities to harass couples, says Asif Iqbal, co-founder of the NGO ‘Dhanak for Humanity’, a platform to extend help for interfaith couples.
Though Delhi government provides ‘safe house’ accommodation to inter-caste and interfaith couples whose relationships were being opposed by their families or local communities, Iqbal points out that most of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) s makes it very difficult for the couples and try to jeopardize the entire process,” he said.
“The “safe house’ provided by the Delhi government is located in North Delhi and the closest SDM office is in Model Town. We are handling several cases where the SDM has informed the parents of the couple about their whereabouts after they submit their personal details. This is contempt of court, as the courts have clearly ruled that not to disclose personal information,” said Iqbal.
“For couples who are coming from a different state, it will take three or four months to register the marriage because of domicile law. First they have to stay for a month and procure identification certificates such as Aadhar, driving license or valid proof. Registering the marriage will take a minimum three months. The officials make the process very difficult and try to jeopardize the entire process,” he says.
He points out that in 2021, Delhi High Court has observed that the act of a Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue notices at the residence of a couple seeking registration of marriage under SMA is prima facie contempt of court. Iqbal also says that with the conversion law in place in most states, many couples elope to states out of their jurisdiction to avoid pressure from family and harassment from vigilante groups. “Currently we are dealing with a case of an interfaith couple from Rajasthan who are facing threat after the SDM intimated their parents. Because of fear, most couples don’t speak out,” he said.
‘Patriarchal’, says CJI while hearing case
The Special Marriage Act provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions or castes, Section 6 directs the marriage officer to issue a public notice for marriage applications and Section 7 invites objections to them. While hearing the case, CJI DY Chandrachud observed that the 30-day notice clause is “patriarchal” and lays couples “open for invasion by the society”.