Eesha Shrotriya and Shantanu Pachauri 
On May 27, 2024, a single judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court refused to grant protection to an interfaith couple – a Muslim man and a Hindu woman – citing that such a marriage would be invalid under Muslim personal law. The judgment delves extensively into explaining the tenets of Muslim personal law, and concludes that such a marriage would be deemed irregular. The court therefore said that police protection should not be granted to the couple while they registered their marriage.
Since neither of them wanted to convert, they had applied to marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
In India, personal laws dictate how marriages are solemnised according to religious traditions, like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Muslim personal law, and the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, etc. The SMA provides an alternative for couples who wish to marry outside their religion or without religious rituals. It allows any two individuals to marry legally, without the need to convert, through a civil process, ensuring their marriage is recognised by the state regardless of their religious backgrounds.
The right to marry has also been recognised by the Supreme Court. In Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), the court held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the constitution.
In their petition filed before the MP high court, the couple had merely asked for protection from their family members during the process of registration of their marriage under the SMA. The Act requires a couple intending to marry to give a written notice to the Marriage Registrar, which is then publicly displayed for 30 days to invite objections from the public. This requirement gives an opportunity to families and religious groups to interfere with the process, often resulting in unfair targeting of the couple. The Supreme Court recently slammed these provisions, stating that they are steeped in patriarchy and expose vulnerable couples to an “invasion” by society.
Marriage rights eroded
The question before the high court was whether the couple should be granted protection. It was clearly established that they wanted to get married under the SMA. The entire purpose of this legislation is to provide a secular framework for couples to get married independent of the restrictions imposed by their religions. Since the couple chose to marry under the SMA, Muslim personal law does not apply to their marriage.
Why the high court extensively discussed the rules regarding the validity of their prospective marriage under Muslim personal law, when it was not applicable, is inscrutable.
The court reasoned that the SMA would not legalise a marriage that otherwise would be prohibited under personal law, since Section 4 of the Act provides that if the parties are not within a prohibited relationship, only then can the marriage be performed. This section provides conditions relating to the solemnisation of special marriages and addresses “degrees of prohibited relationships”. This term is exhaustively defined under the Act, which enumerates all the possible relationships that would be classified as “prohibited”. This condition has been included to prevent the possibility of incestuous relationships.
The court, therefore, interpreted the provision in an overly broad manner. Such an interpretation contradicts the fundamental spirit of the Act, which was enacted to empower couples with the freedom to marry without dealing with any obstacles due to their religious differences.
The court held that their marriage would be irregular even if it were registered under the SMA. In our opinion, their marriage can only be deemed irregular if they marry under the Muslim personal law. This is precisely why they have resorted to the special legislation. The court’s interpretation would end the possibility of interfaith marriages. It would imply that the SMA can only be resorted to when the marriage is valid under the personal laws, which makes no sense as the SMA would be rendered redundant.
This ruling is not only legally incorrect, but also dangerous. In recent years, several states have passed “anti-conversion” laws, which already impede the freedom to marry for interfaith couples. Moreover, the prevailing “love jihad” narrative – a bogey by Hindutva organisations claiming a conspiracy by Muslims to convert Hindus by marrying them – remains prominent. Considering this judgment within the broader context of ongoing events, we believe it has the potential to inflict significant harm and undo the progress made by the Supreme Court.
Eesha Shrotriya and Shantanu Pachauri are assistant professors at the School of Law, RV University.