New Delhi: The recently proposed amendment to a Gujarat marriage law introduces a verification process for marriage registration, requiring officials to notify blood relatives of the couple seeking to marry, and expands the State's role in scrutinising marriages before registration.

Taken together, these new provisions in the Gujarat Registration of Marriage Act, 2006, mark a significant expansion of State involvement in the private and intimate choices of adult citizens. 

Although presented as a measure to promote transparency and prevent deception in marriage, the proposal increases the State's increasing reach into personal lives.

The proposal also reflects a broader trend in recent years, where marriages—particularly interfaith unions—have increasingly been subjected to legal and administrative scrutiny and increased surveillance, particularly in states run by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The amendment illustrates how regulatory frameworks governing marriage are being reshaped to expand State monitoring of personal relationships.

Understanding The Process

Under the present version of Gujarat’s proposed law, marriages must be registered by submitting an application within 30 days of solemnisation. The application form—called a memorandum of marriage—records the details and signatures of the parties to the marriage, the witnesses and the officiating priest. 

The application, along with the fee, is to be submitted to the registrar in the jurisdiction where the marriage is solemnised.

The grounds for refusing registration under current law are limited and specific. A registrar may refuse to register only if the identity of the parties, proof that the marriage was solemnised, or the marital status of the parties cannot be established.

Under the current law, applicants must provide details of their parents or guardians, but their signatures or permission are not required. Nor does the law mandate any form of public notice.

This framework is set to change under the proposed rules. 

The registrar must notify the couple’s blood relatives by registered post and publish details of the intended marriage in the public domain, including newspapers and social media—30 days after which the marriage can be registered.

The purpose of such public notification is not clear and has drawn criticism. 

Surveillance & Scrutiny 

By mandating public notification, the amendment subjects adult couples to a form of surveillance that goes far beyond record-keeping.  

Though framed as procedural safeguards, these requirements often create barriers for couples whose relationships depart from social expectations. For many couples—particularly those in inter-caste or inter-faith relationships—privacy is not merely a matter of preference; it can be essential for their safety and well-being. 

Couples who elope  to marry against the wishes of their family, often  face administrative hurdles and criminal charges In such cases, a marriage certificate could serve as a tool against interference and as proof of the couple's choice.   

A requirement that parents be formally notified of a marriage application could expose couples to harassment, coercion, or violence, undermining the very protections that constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy are meant to secure.

Similar conditions, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, have already been found unconstitutional and invalid by high courts:

- In Kuldeep Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan, 2018, the Rajasthan High Court prohibited sending of marriage notifications to the home of the parties. 

- In Pranav Kumar Mishra vs Govt. of NCT, Delhi, 2009, the Delhi High Court declared the requirement to inform the local police station of an intended marriage invalid and held that the conditions that lead to “unwarranted disclosure of marriage” may jeopardise the marriage itself and may harm the safety and well-being of couples.  

In another case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2018 modified the requirement to publish a notice in a newspaper and notify the local tehsildar, citing the potential harm this could subject an interfaith couple to. 

Rising Trend Of Policing Relationships 

Laws that cast suspicion on adult relationships—even under the guise of protection—threaten the core of what it means to exercise personal freedom in a democratic society. 

This regulatory trend is also visible in laws governing religious conversion in the context of interfaith marriage. 

In 2020, the Uttar Pradesh legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance—often referred to as the “love-jihad” law—which introduced stringent procedures and criminal penalties for alleged religious conversions that have had serious implications for inter-faith couples. 

Similar laws have since been enacted or proposed in other states, including Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan.  These laws often grant broad powers to authorities, leading to increased police intervention and interference by vigilante groups.

While these laws are presented as safeguards against coercion or fraud, they often rest on the assumption that interfaith relationships require heightened scrutiny and have, in some cases, led to hate-mongering and legal action against Muslim men. 

The constitutional validity of several of these laws is currently under review  before the Supreme Court. This broad trend highlights a growing tension between individual liberties and state-led or socially driven attempts to regulate intimate relationships, raising concerns about civil rights, gender autonomy, and secularism in contemporary India.

Violation of Right to Privacy & Autonomy

In K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 2017, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy includes the right to decisional autonomy in matters relating to family, marriage and intimate relationships. 

India’s Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted to include the freedom to choose one’s partner. 

These interpretations are evident in landmark judgments, such as Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M., 2018, and Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, 2018. 

In Laxmibai Chandaragi B vs State of Karnataka, 2021, and Shakti Vahini vs UOI, 2018, the Supreme Court specifically reiterated that the consent of the family, community, or clan is not required for two adults to marry. 

Gujarat’s proposed amendment runs contrary to these rulings.

The registration of marriage is ideally an administrative measure for record-keeping. These conditions, however, change the registration process into a surveillance and permission process and violate personal liberty and privacy. 

Violation Of The Right To Equality

Gujarat’s proposed amendment also violates the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution. 

First, it reinforces harmful stereotypes about women. The presumption that women need protection from men who may ‘lure’ them is based on a prejudiced perspective that sees women as naive and lacking the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. 

In this prejudicial worldview, women are seen in a reduced status, not as individual citizens but as daughters in the custody of fathers and in need of protection.

The Supreme Court in Anuj Garg vs Hotel Association of India, 2007, held that Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on sex and outlaws any legal provision that is based on stereotypical notions of women’s capacity and role in society. 

Again, in Joseph Shine vs UOI, 2018, the Supreme Court held that while the Constitution allows beneficial legislation to be introduced for the advancement of women and protecting their rights, it is not a blanket permission. 

Any measure that stereotypes women in the name of ‘protecting’ them can be declared discriminatory on the grounds of sex. 

Second, the proposed amendment could disproportionately impact inter-caste and interfaith couples marrying against the wishes of their family and community. 

Data suggest that marriages within caste and community remain a dominant norm. Inter-caste and inter-faith couples face significant social pressure, surveillance and violence. 

By making parental consent mandatory, the law discriminates on the basis of caste or religion, prohibited under Article 15(1). It creates a hierarchy of acceptable and unacceptable marriage relationships and reinforces the idea that certain relationships require scrutiny or monitoring. 

Questions Over Legislative Process

The proposed amendment also raises questions about the legislative process and the constitutional duty of the executive and the legislature for rights protection. While courts can act only when a petition challenges the validity of a law, across the world's constitutional democracies, the legislature serves as a first check against rights violations at the pre-enactment stage. 

For example, under the procedures and rules of the Australian parliament, all bills must be accompanied by a ‘Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights’. 

The statement obliges the government to state explicitly whether the proposed bill violates any human rights. If yes, then the government must explain why the bill is necessary over less rights-threatening measures. 

Similarly, in the British parliament, bills must be accompanied by explanatory notes and an assessment of rights protection, in case rights under the European Charter of Human Rights are violated.

While introducing the Gujarat bill, the state government provided no data or explained its impact on the right to autonomy and equality. 

Instead, the deputy chief minister of Gujarat cited incidents of ‘love-jihad’ as the justification. It is now well-established (here and here) that ‘love-jihad’ is a conspiracy theory with no evidence or supporting data. 

Last year, a similar law was introduced in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly against so-called religious conversion on marriage or the pretext of marriage. The minister of state for home argued the need to protect women and children from conversion, but cited no data or explained its impact on fundamental rights. 

As we write, similar patterns of legislative scrutiny being abandoned are emerging in Maharashtra. 

Passing laws based on a conspiracy theory is a serious question mark on what legislative process is followed for scrutiny and justification of law-making.

(Ajita Banerjie is an independent socio-legal researcher based in India. Surbhi Karwa is a lawyer pursuing a PhD in Sydney, Australia.)

Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.