‘Consider constitution of panel on uniform civil code’
JUSTICE SUNEET KUMAR PASSED THE ORDER WHILE ALLOWING A BATCH OF 17 PETITIONS PERTAINING TO INTERFAITH MARRIAGE CONTRACTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
PRAYAGRAJ : The Allahabad high court on Thursday asked the central government to consider the constitution of a committee/ commission for implementing the mandate of Article 44 of the Constitution which says that the “state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
The court also directed the marriage registrar/officer of the petitioners’ districts to forthwith register the marriage of the petitioners, without insisting/awaiting approval of the competent district authority with regard to conversion of faith.
Justice Suneet Kumar passed the order while allowing a batch of 17 petitions pertaining to interfaith marriage contracted by the petitioners.
The petitioners are majors and one of the parties to the marriage had converted to the religion/faith of the partner.
Apprehending threats to their life, liberty and well-being, they filed writ petitions seeking protection and registration of their marriages.
The standing counsel appearing for the state government submitted that the conversion is for the purpose of marriage and approval of the district magistrate has not been obtained before conversion and/or contracting marriage. The marriage cannot be registered without the district authority making an enquiry, as to whether, the conversion is voluntary and not induced by coercion, allurement and threat, said the standing counsel representing the state government.
Further, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief from this court, they should approach the competent district authority and obtain approval, in the first instance, with regard to their conversion, the standing counsel representing the state government further said. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, the standing counsel added.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the citizens have a right to make choice of their partner and faith; the conversion of religion/faith, followed by marriage under the personal law is on free will without coercion, threat or inducement. Interference by the State or by the private respondents (family members) would tantamount to encroaching upon their constitutional right to freedom, choice, life, liberty and to live life on their own terms as man and woman, the counsel for the petitioners said. The prior approval of the district authority followed by registration of marriage is not a sine qua non (an essential condition) before conversion and marriage, the counsel for the petitioners added.
The court observed, “The stage has reached that Parlia
ment should intervene and examine, as to whether, the country requires multiplicity of marriage and registration laws or the parties to a marriage should be brought under the umbrella of single family code.”
“Marriage is just an association of two persons, recognized by law. There is nothing ‘special’ about marriage to subject it under different laws for various communities, thus erecting barriers in the free intermingling of the citizens. The petitioners, herein, cannot be hounded as criminals. Their crime, if any, is that they have succumbed to the dictates of their heart for each other,” the court observed. On the interference of family and society in interfaith marriages, the court observed, “The consent of the family or the community or the clan or the State or Executive is not necessary, once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock which is lawful and legal. Their consent has to be piously given primacy, with grace and dignity.” The court directed the police to ensure the safety of the petitioners and restrained their kin from interfering in their peaceful life and said the marriage officer/ registrar cannot refuse to register a duly solemnized marriage, and/or insist on a conversion approval of district authority.