Landmark Judgments On Interfaith Marriages
🔷 1. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475
Facts:
Lata Singh, a Hindu girl, married a Dalit boy against her family's wishes. Her family tried to implicate the boy and his family in false criminal cases. She approached the Supreme Court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a major girl is free to marry anyone she likes and no one can harass or threaten the couple for such a marriage.
The court emphasized Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty, stating that honor killings or harassment in the name of inter-caste or inter-religious marriages is illegal.
It directed the police to take strict action against those threatening or harassing such couples.
Significance:
Reinforced that consensual interfaith marriages by adults are legally protected.
Warned against misuse of social pressure or violence against such couples.
🔷 2. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 – "Hadiya Case"
Facts:
Hadiya, a Hindu girl, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Shafin Jahan. Her father filed a habeas corpus petition alleging she was brainwashed and radicalized. The Kerala High Court annulled the marriage.
Judgment by Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court restored the marriage, stating that Hadiya, being a major, had the right to make her own decisions.
The court said that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is a fundamental right under Article 21.
It rejected the notion of “parental guardianship” over a major woman’s choice in marriage.
Significance:
The ruling asserted autonomy of adult women in matters of religion and marriage.
Dismissed the Kerala High Court’s annulment as paternalistic and unconstitutional.
🔷 3. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 635
Facts:
The case involved Hindu men who converted to Islam to marry a second time without dissolving their first Hindu marriage. The petitioners were first wives who challenged this practice.
Judgment:
The court held that conversion to Islam for the purpose of contracting a second marriage without legally dissolving the first marriage was invalid.
Such conversion was termed fraudulent and did not absolve the person from the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Bigamy in such cases is punishable under Section 494 IPC.
Significance:
Important in the context of interfaith marriages, especially where conversion is used to circumvent personal laws.
Pushed for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to avoid misuse of religious conversions in marriage.
🔷 4. Mohammed Salim v. Shamsudeen (2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1103)
Facts:
This case involved a man and woman from different religions who approached the court for protection as they feared threats from their families due to their interfaith relationship.
Judgment:
The Kerala High Court reiterated that two consenting adults have the right to choose their life partner, irrespective of religion or caste.
The court granted them police protection, reinforcing that personal liberty cannot be violated by societal norms.
Significance:
Important for protecting couples in interfaith relationships from honor-based violence or coercion.
Reinforced freedom of choice in marriage.
🔷 5. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602
Facts:
A Hindu girl and a Muslim boy, though not yet of marriageable age under personal law, decided to live together. The girl's father objected and sought her custody.
Judgment:
The court ruled that the right to cohabit or live-in is a fundamental right under Article 21, even if the couple is not legally married.
Even if a valid marriage cannot be performed due to age or law, two adults have the right to live together.
Significance:
It extended the right to choose a partner beyond the legal construct of marriage.
Reinforced that personal liberty includes the right to cohabit, especially important for interfaith couples facing legal or religious hurdles.
🔷 6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to Privacy
Though not an interfaith marriage case per se, it is highly relevant:
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
This includes decisions relating to marriage, procreation, and family life.
Significance:
Used as a foundation for judgments like Hadiya and Shafin Jahan, reinforcing that marriage choice is a private matter and State interference is limited.
Strengthened the case for individual autonomy in interfaith unions.
🔷 7. Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Judicial Observations
While not a case, courts have often stressed the importance of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, which allows civil marriages between individuals of different faiths without conversion.
However, Section 5 to 7, which require a 30-day public notice, have been criticized for violating privacy.
In Pranav Kumar Mishra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009), the Delhi High Court held that the requirement of notice under the SMA can violate privacy and expose couples to harassment.
🔚 Conclusion
| Case | Key Issue | Principle Upheld |
|---|---|---|
| Lata Singh | Inter-caste/interfaith marriage | Adults can marry by choice |
| Hadiya (Shafin Jahan) | Parental objection to interfaith marriage | Personal liberty and autonomy |
| Sarla Mudgal | Conversion to remarry | No misuse of conversion for bigamy |
| Mohd. Salim | Threats to interfaith couple | Police protection, adult autonomy |
| Nandakumar | Live-in relationship | Right to cohabit without marriage |
| Puttaswamy | Privacy rights | Right to choose partner is private |
RELATED Blog
0 comments